4 ms·

Given the current situation, which would you choose? I understand the desire for the web to be like it was in the late 90's and early 00's, but we are here now,

by elamje 8y ago

Given the current situation, which would you choose? I understand the desire for the web to be like it was in the late 90's and early 00's, but we are here now, and some of the services are incredibly great compared to the previous generation of websites.

sarcasmatwork 8y ago
Neither. Anonymous browsing? Why should we have to accept being tracked or paying $$ when its NEVER been like that? It's not their data, its mine. How about these companies pay me to use my info? I choose to sell how much and what. They dont like it? Well, you have a poor business model.
- shanecleveland 8y ago
  OK. But you do understand that it costs money to both produce content and keep sites online, right?
  - rolph 8y ago
    interesting. I pay nothing for my site, i pay nothing to type text into my landing page and i pay nothing for my users to post data and info, and i ask nothing in return other than common courtesy.
    - potta_coffee 8y ago
      Right. It costs money to make content into a business. Content itself costs nothing and is worth nothing. It's attention that has value (to advertisers). But advertising and tracking lower the value of the content that they're attached to, to just about nil.
- elamje 8y ago
  Just to add onto what someone else said, if all users did what you do, the companies would shut down or have to work off of donations
  - rolph 8y ago
    if all users did what S_at Work , and I do we would actually be back to the internet the way it used to be with those of capability hosting thier sites and BBS's and everyone having a jolly good time for free. I feel sorry for those who have never even experienced the real internet and think the web and facebook are the internet.
    - potta_coffee 8y ago
      That's how I feel about it. The crazy thing is, communities I used to go for information have died, the forums are still there but they're essentially dead. Some users went to Facebook, some to Reddit, but I can't go to those places and actually get the information I want, like I used to be able to do. The current corporate internet gobbled up everything without giving us anything in return, and now they want to complain about not making enough money. Boo hoo.
  - rchaud 8y ago
    If those companies offer a product worth paying for, they won't have to. WSJ has had a paywall since 2005, NYT since 2011. The web back then was full of 'hobbyist' websites covering film, music and art. Those websites might have been ugly, but they felt genuine because the person creating content wasn't begging for likes, follows and shares, nor were they stretching 2 mins of content to 10 to meet Youtube's minimum length requirements for video ads. The companies you say would have to shut down are VC-backed "digital media plays" focused on junk food content that attracts eyeballs and ad dollars. There is no shortage of time-waster websites that would pop up to take their place. People pay for Adobe CC, Sketch, AWS hosting, ProtonMail etc, because it's something they feel is worth paying for. They don't pay for 9gag, TMZ or Buzzfeed because they consider them to be time wasters.
potta_coffee 8y ago
I'll continue browsing for free, without viewing ads. If content becomes unavailable, there's just about nothing on the web that I can't live without. Twitter, Facebook, etc etc. The world would be a better place, IMO, if they disappeared anyway. The web we have was chosen for us by technocrats.
rchaud 8y ago
Well sure, online services in 2019 are better than what was available in 1999. The question is, could those services not have improved by the same magnitude without the insane levels of tracking and ads that led to ad-driven (rather than product-driven) business models? - Email - Instant Messaging - Forums - Online shopping - Online payment processing - Streaming video - Maps and Navigation Only the latter two services were not available at the same level of quality 20 years ago, and that would be due to technological limitations.

by elamje 8y ago

sarcasmatwork 8y ago

Neither. Anonymous browsing? Why should we have to accept being tracked or paying $$ when its NEVER been like that? It's not their data, its mine. How about these companies pay me to use my info? I choose to sell how much and what. They dont like it? Well, you have a poor business model.

shanecleveland 8y ago
OK. But you do understand that it costs money to both produce content and keep sites online, right?
- rolph 8y ago
  interesting. I pay nothing for my site, i pay nothing to type text into my landing page and i pay nothing for my users to post data and info, and i ask nothing in return other than common courtesy.
  - potta_coffee 8y ago
    Right. It costs money to make content into a business. Content itself costs nothing and is worth nothing. It's attention that has value (to advertisers). But advertising and tracking lower the value of the content that they're attached to, to just about nil.
elamje 8y ago
Just to add onto what someone else said, if all users did what you do, the companies would shut down or have to work off of donations
- rolph 8y ago
  if all users did what S_at Work , and I do we would actually be back to the internet the way it used to be with those of capability hosting thier sites and BBS's and everyone having a jolly good time for free. I feel sorry for those who have never even experienced the real internet and think the web and facebook are the internet.
  - potta_coffee 8y ago
    That's how I feel about it. The crazy thing is, communities I used to go for information have died, the forums are still there but they're essentially dead. Some users went to Facebook, some to Reddit, but I can't go to those places and actually get the information I want, like I used to be able to do. The current corporate internet gobbled up everything without giving us anything in return, and now they want to complain about not making enough money. Boo hoo.
- rchaud 8y ago
  If those companies offer a product worth paying for, they won't have to. WSJ has had a paywall since 2005, NYT since 2011. The web back then was full of 'hobbyist' websites covering film, music and art. Those websites might have been ugly, but they felt genuine because the person creating content wasn't begging for likes, follows and shares, nor were they stretching 2 mins of content to 10 to meet Youtube's minimum length requirements for video ads. The companies you say would have to shut down are VC-backed "digital media plays" focused on junk food content that attracts eyeballs and ad dollars. There is no shortage of time-waster websites that would pop up to take their place. People pay for Adobe CC, Sketch, AWS hosting, ProtonMail etc, because it's something they feel is worth paying for. They don't pay for 9gag, TMZ or Buzzfeed because they consider them to be time wasters.

potta_coffee 8y ago

I'll continue browsing for free, without viewing ads. If content becomes unavailable, there's just about nothing on the web that I can't live without. Twitter, Facebook, etc etc. The world would be a better place, IMO, if they disappeared anyway. The web we have was chosen for us by technocrats.

rchaud 8y ago

Well sure, online services in 2019 are better than what was available in 1999. The question is, could those services not have improved by the same magnitude without the insane levels of tracking and ads that led to ad-driven (rather than product-driven) business models? - Email - Instant Messaging - Forums - Online shopping - Online payment processing - Streaming video - Maps and Navigation Only the latter two services were not available at the same level of quality 20 years ago, and that would be due to technological limitations.