4 ms·

I don't understand how you are relating this to the tragedy of the commons other than saying that because something has a reason it doesn't preclude it from bei

I don't understand how you are relating this to the tragedy of the commons other than saying that because something has a reason it doesn't preclude it from being something.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Everyone selfishly optimizing their bottomline ("let's earn a bit more by including extra JS analytics bullshit", "let's save some time on our end by making a million people waste a little bit of electricity every pageview") - each initially reaping some short-term benefits, but together ultimately turning the web into the shitshow it is today. That's textbook tragedy of the commons.
- monadgonad 8y ago
  People’s/companies’ own websites aren’t commons. The protocols that make up the web itself haven’t degraded through use; this is no more a tragedy of the commons than if every shop in your town made you wait a few seconds before you could go inside.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    No, but the frameworks they use and services they outsource tasks to definitely are commons. Even more so are design and development trends.
    - monadgonad 8y ago
      > Even more so are design and development trends. No, they’re completely not. Trends are not a shared resource such that a few people misusing it harms that resource for everyone. Something being common doesn’t make it a commons. Any website can choose not to do these things - just look at HN. They’re not a necessary shared resource, in the same way that all Baltic countries must fish from the same sea.
  - blub 8y ago
    Temporal literally said that the internet is the "commons" and your counter is that companies and protocols aren't the commons. You're just being purposefully obtuse, this is not hard to understand, assuming ones paycheck doesn't depend on not understanding it.
    - bena 8y ago
      I think his point is that the protocols are the internet. I mean, the "internet" is just the word we give to the interconnected network of computers spanning the globe. It doesn't exist as a thing per se, but as an idea. The internet can never be slow. Your connection to a certain site can be slow. Whether that site is a particular web page or the internet service provider's router that provides you with access to the greater network.
      - blub 8y ago
        In this case the internet is the sum of the online services people interact with. Most websites are using advertising and spyware-like tracking, to the point that it can be said that interacting with the internet will be a poor experience without an ad blocker. There will always be the odd oasis website, but the internet has been completely swallowed by spyvertising.
    - monadgonad 8y ago
      There’s no need to be so rude. I’m not being obtuse; I understand their point, I just disagree with it. The internet itself is not degraded by some major news sites being slow. Their misuse of their part of the internet doesn’t affect it overall, thus it is not tragedy of the commons. Most of the websites I use on a day to day basis (GitHub, Stack Exchange, HN, most smaller blogs that I find through HN, etc.) do not have this problem. The experience of those sites isn’t made worse by other companies’ sites being bad so, again, it’s not a tragedy of the commons.
      - blub 8y ago
        The internet as experienced by the average human is a poorer experience because of the advertising and spyware/tracking. This is almost universally true, even if small areas have been fenced off. The fact that you can limit your use of the internet to HN and a few other sites is in fact a luxury.
blub 8y ago
The internet is a shared, unregulated resource which is spoiled by individual actors selfishly following their interest of making money through ads. It is rational for each commercial website to use advertising, and tracking and other crap. As the parent said, those people aren't idiots. But in the end they are still ruining the internet for all of us.

I don't understand how you are relating this to the tragedy of the commons other than saying that because something has a reason it doesn't preclude it from being something.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Everyone selfishly optimizing their bottomline ("let's earn a bit more by including extra JS analytics bullshit", "let's save some time on our end by making a million people waste a little bit of electricity every pageview") - each initially reaping some short-term benefits, but together ultimately turning the web into the shitshow it is today. That's textbook tragedy of the commons.

monadgonad 8y ago
People’s/companies’ own websites aren’t commons. The protocols that make up the web itself haven’t degraded through use; this is no more a tragedy of the commons than if every shop in your town made you wait a few seconds before you could go inside.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  No, but the frameworks they use and services they outsource tasks to definitely are commons. Even more so are design and development trends.
  - monadgonad 8y ago
    > Even more so are design and development trends. No, they’re completely not. Trends are not a shared resource such that a few people misusing it harms that resource for everyone. Something being common doesn’t make it a commons. Any website can choose not to do these things - just look at HN. They’re not a necessary shared resource, in the same way that all Baltic countries must fish from the same sea.
- blub 8y ago
  Temporal literally said that the internet is the "commons" and your counter is that companies and protocols aren't the commons. You're just being purposefully obtuse, this is not hard to understand, assuming ones paycheck doesn't depend on not understanding it.
  - bena 8y ago
    I think his point is that the protocols are the internet. I mean, the "internet" is just the word we give to the interconnected network of computers spanning the globe. It doesn't exist as a thing per se, but as an idea. The internet can never be slow. Your connection to a certain site can be slow. Whether that site is a particular web page or the internet service provider's router that provides you with access to the greater network.
    - blub 8y ago
      In this case the internet is the sum of the online services people interact with. Most websites are using advertising and spyware-like tracking, to the point that it can be said that interacting with the internet will be a poor experience without an ad blocker. There will always be the odd oasis website, but the internet has been completely swallowed by spyvertising.
  - monadgonad 8y ago
    There’s no need to be so rude. I’m not being obtuse; I understand their point, I just disagree with it. The internet itself is not degraded by some major news sites being slow. Their misuse of their part of the internet doesn’t affect it overall, thus it is not tragedy of the commons. Most of the websites I use on a day to day basis (GitHub, Stack Exchange, HN, most smaller blogs that I find through HN, etc.) do not have this problem. The experience of those sites isn’t made worse by other companies’ sites being bad so, again, it’s not a tragedy of the commons.
    - blub 8y ago
      The internet as experienced by the average human is a poorer experience because of the advertising and spyware/tracking. This is almost universally true, even if small areas have been fenced off. The fact that you can limit your use of the internet to HN and a few other sites is in fact a luxury.

blub 8y ago

The internet is a shared, unregulated resource which is spoiled by individual actors selfishly following their interest of making money through ads. It is rational for each commercial website to use advertising, and tracking and other crap. As the parent said, those people aren't idiots. But in the end they are still ruining the internet for all of us.