3 ms·

I'm getting weary reading the constant lament of the "internet" as a massive entity. These articles take the same form: - "ugh social media is terrible, remem

I'm getting weary reading the constant lament of the "internet" as a massive entity. These articles take the same form: - "ugh social media is terrible, remember forums" - "aren't rss feeds great" - "remember when sites were HTML based" - "back in my day the internet was just me and a few cool people" The internet is not a monolith. What people are complaining about is the corporate internet; the parts of the internet that are owned by billion dollar companies. Here's the reality: - there are more interesting independent blogs now than there were pre-Facebook/Twitter. Maybe less "per-capita" of total online usage, but there's still a higher volume - every single person is capable of making an online community using cheap tech, and using corporate social media to promote it; way easier than it was in the past - developers are still "allowed" to make sites in plain HTML/CSS that look great and load fast Blockbuster movies are always bad, so people made indie films. Network TV sitcoms are bad, so people made online series. Pop music is bad, so people make great music and play in local bars and small venues. If you're tired of the "internet being bad", its time to put the work in to find (or make!) what you like, because it's all out there.

AstralStorm 8y ago
Independent does not work at all because random websites are no longer discoverable. In the old days of the internet discoverability was via word of mouth, portals/aggregators or old "topic rings". You had bulletin boards as well. The original reason for e.g. Reddit to exist was to be an aggregator and recommendation service. However it started handling discussions which it is not equipped to deal with at all and then went downhill. A similar aggregator is HN. Again, it is not equipped for discussion. Both are curated by users which further lowers signal to noise ratio and causes popularity contest plus short lifespan of valuable content. Both are essentially RSS feeds with HTML/JS interface, comment and vote functions. Forum software is equipped for discussion but requires manual curation to serve as an aggregator limiting volume. Likewise newer chat software. Facebook and Twitter are inferior compared to forum software in almost all cases. They are broadcast media with major limitations that are user curated. Facebook main reason of existence is remembering and tracking people not matchmaking or contact - it is not equipped for that well if at all - the chat handles maybe a few people at most, comments under posts are a total mess. Nobody really cares about volume. (Unless they sell ads.) Quality is what matters and it really went down with user curated sites. For social talk and matchmaking, you need a platform that allows discussion in the long term. Neither Facebook nor Twitter help with it as a profile or a post is not a topic. The old chat survives alongside some bigger forims still, both IRC and newer platforms like Slack, Discord, Twitch etc. These have a problem with discoverability because they're rarely indexed. The major differentiator is again "user curated" vs moderated; broadcast vs chat.

AstralStorm 8y ago

Independent does not work at all because random websites are no longer discoverable. In the old days of the internet discoverability was via word of mouth, portals/aggregators or old "topic rings". You had bulletin boards as well. The original reason for e.g. Reddit to exist was to be an aggregator and recommendation service. However it started handling discussions which it is not equipped to deal with at all and then went downhill. A similar aggregator is HN. Again, it is not equipped for discussion. Both are curated by users which further lowers signal to noise ratio and causes popularity contest plus short lifespan of valuable content. Both are essentially RSS feeds with HTML/JS interface, comment and vote functions. Forum software is equipped for discussion but requires manual curation to serve as an aggregator limiting volume. Likewise newer chat software. Facebook and Twitter are inferior compared to forum software in almost all cases. They are broadcast media with major limitations that are user curated. Facebook main reason of existence is remembering and tracking people not matchmaking or contact - it is not equipped for that well if at all - the chat handles maybe a few people at most, comments under posts are a total mess. Nobody really cares about volume. (Unless they sell ads.) Quality is what matters and it really went down with user curated sites. For social talk and matchmaking, you need a platform that allows discussion in the long term. Neither Facebook nor Twitter help with it as a profile or a post is not a topic. The old chat survives alongside some bigger forims still, both IRC and newer platforms like Slack, Discord, Twitch etc. These have a problem with discoverability because they're rarely indexed. The major differentiator is again "user curated" vs moderated; broadcast vs chat.