3 ms·

Contra Tim Berners-Lee, the World Wide Web had no magic effect on the signal-to-noise ratio of human information. Sorry, boss.

dredmorbius 5y ago
Contra MANY early boosters of the Internet, WWW, and global connectivity generally. I'd especially pin accountability on Stewart Brand, Kevin Kelly, Howard Rheingold, and others of the Whole Earth / WELL crowd. They were among the loudest and most influential advocates, though not at all alone or controversial at the time. Simply wrong. Adam Curtis's Hypernormalisation and All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace are among the best explorations and critiques of that viewpoint I'm aware of.
- specialist 5y ago
  Yes and: Many like The Well netizens assumed a Platonic Philosopher Kings future. A select group (such as themselves) of educated, erudite, elites would converse amongst themselves, reach some kind of consensus, and then lead the way. Which were unlike the prior self-annointed thought leaders in broadcast and print medias, of course. While totally ignoring the grim reality of usenet, forums, BBS networks, etc. As former compuserve moderator and hub for a modest BBS network, nothing about today's cesspool surprises me. Trolls, bots, flamewars, all of it. My only surprise is that other people are surprised. The recurring amnesia, feinting spells, and pearl clutching. One small bit of progress is we're no longer suffering the technotopian blather of those pollyannas.
  - jhbadger 5y ago
    But that was kind of true with any new technology. Enthusiasts at the dawn of radio and TV were convinced that the new technology would bring learning to the masses and while that was tried a bit (such as in the UK's "Open University" which provided basically pre-Internet MOOCs) both radio and TV failed to reach their enthusiasts' lofty goals. Why is it so surprising that the Internet was no different?
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      It's not surprising that the Internet was no different. It is surprising that the false myth is so persistent.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  Hypernormalization is phenomenal. It's passionate, but outlines some specifics about how things are done, that are pertinent to this discussion. Highly, highly recommended.
naasking 5y ago
It did for awhile, until commercialization really took off. Then the incentives became skewed.
- JadeNB 5y ago
  > It did for awhile, until commercialization really took off. Then the incentives became skewed. Yes—I remember the web as I experienced it in the '90s. It was a much different place from today's web. I'd hate to trade away all the amenities and conveniences of the modern web, but I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to choose the social environment of that internet over today's.
  - Analemma_ 5y ago
    > I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to choose the social environment of that internet over today's. The social environment of that Internet was a product of access being limited to tech nerds, the wealthy, and college students (in the same way that HN is a more bearable debate environment than Facebook, not because of any moderation choices but because HN is a self-selecting population of people with mostly the same job, class, and general education level). This was never going to endure once Internet access became ubiquitous, as my other comment alluded to.
    - JadeNB 5y ago
      > In the same way that HN is a more bearable debate environment than Facebook, not because of any moderation choices but because HN is a self-selecting population of people with mostly the same job, class, and general education level. I think this underrates the importance of moderation, at least at the community level (my experience of HN moderation from the top has been nil, so I can't speak to it). Sure, HN is the way it is because of its community, but that community was not an accident; it was created. Spaces can be made welcoming without becoming cesspools, and to point to the tendency of public spaces to become cesspools doesn't mean that moderation makes no difference. (Long delayed response because I was posting too fast.)
    - h2odragon 5y ago
prvc 5y ago
Based on what evidence? And is the "signal to noise ratio" (I guess something like the ratio of "impressions" containing all true vs. at least one false statement) really measuring anything useful? And need that necessarily be the case? Now information which used to be difficult, expensive, slow, etc. to obtain is accessible to all people with internet access within seconds should they ever try to find it.

dredmorbius 5y ago

Contra MANY early boosters of the Internet, WWW, and global connectivity generally. I'd especially pin accountability on Stewart Brand, Kevin Kelly, Howard Rheingold, and others of the Whole Earth / WELL crowd. They were among the loudest and most influential advocates, though not at all alone or controversial at the time. Simply wrong. Adam Curtis's Hypernormalisation and All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace are among the best explorations and critiques of that viewpoint I'm aware of.

specialist 5y ago
Yes and: Many like The Well netizens assumed a Platonic Philosopher Kings future. A select group (such as themselves) of educated, erudite, elites would converse amongst themselves, reach some kind of consensus, and then lead the way. Which were unlike the prior self-annointed thought leaders in broadcast and print medias, of course. While totally ignoring the grim reality of usenet, forums, BBS networks, etc. As former compuserve moderator and hub for a modest BBS network, nothing about today's cesspool surprises me. Trolls, bots, flamewars, all of it. My only surprise is that other people are surprised. The recurring amnesia, feinting spells, and pearl clutching. One small bit of progress is we're no longer suffering the technotopian blather of those pollyannas.
- jhbadger 5y ago
  But that was kind of true with any new technology. Enthusiasts at the dawn of radio and TV were convinced that the new technology would bring learning to the masses and while that was tried a bit (such as in the UK's "Open University" which provided basically pre-Internet MOOCs) both radio and TV failed to reach their enthusiasts' lofty goals. Why is it so surprising that the Internet was no different?
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    It's not surprising that the Internet was no different. It is surprising that the false myth is so persistent.
Applejinx 5y ago
Hypernormalization is phenomenal. It's passionate, but outlines some specifics about how things are done, that are pertinent to this discussion. Highly, highly recommended.

naasking 5y ago

It did for awhile, until commercialization really took off. Then the incentives became skewed.

JadeNB 5y ago
> It did for awhile, until commercialization really took off. Then the incentives became skewed. Yes—I remember the web as I experienced it in the '90s. It was a much different place from today's web. I'd hate to trade away all the amenities and conveniences of the modern web, but I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to choose the social environment of that internet over today's.
- Analemma_ 5y ago
  > I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to choose the social environment of that internet over today's. The social environment of that Internet was a product of access being limited to tech nerds, the wealthy, and college students (in the same way that HN is a more bearable debate environment than Facebook, not because of any moderation choices but because HN is a self-selecting population of people with mostly the same job, class, and general education level). This was never going to endure once Internet access became ubiquitous, as my other comment alluded to.
  - JadeNB 5y ago
    > In the same way that HN is a more bearable debate environment than Facebook, not because of any moderation choices but because HN is a self-selecting population of people with mostly the same job, class, and general education level. I think this underrates the importance of moderation, at least at the community level (my experience of HN moderation from the top has been nil, so I can't speak to it). Sure, HN is the way it is because of its community, but that community was not an accident; it was created. Spaces can be made welcoming without becoming cesspools, and to point to the tendency of public spaces to become cesspools doesn't mean that moderation makes no difference. (Long delayed response because I was posting too fast.)
  - h2odragon 5y ago

prvc 5y ago

Based on what evidence? And is the "signal to noise ratio" (I guess something like the ratio of "impressions" containing all true vs. at least one false statement) really measuring anything useful? And need that necessarily be the case? Now information which used to be difficult, expensive, slow, etc. to obtain is accessible to all people with internet access within seconds should they ever try to find it.