3 ms·

The term "rant" is so wildly overused lately that it's lost virtually all meaning. Whether you agree with it or not, this is an argument, not a rant.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Groxx 15y ago
What's the argument they're making? And even if there is one, it's lost in the "the past rules, the present sucks, and the future will suck more" that permeates every sentence. Heck, arguably, every rant has an argument - having one doesn't make it not-a-rant. edit: I'm actually curious what you think it is, I don't see one aside from "don't lose your soul" - but that's not an argument. That's advice. Who, or what, are they arguing against, and what is their counter-argument?
- cageface 15y ago
  Really? Is this so hard? The argument in a nutshell: technology is wonderful but the initial promise of "web 2.0" has encouraged corporate greed and unethical behavior instead of empowering users as many of us had hoped. Specific recent cases of this phenomenon were cited in support of the argument. Help yourself to some rants here: http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classicrants/classicrants.html http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classicrants/classi...
  - Groxx 15y ago
    So they're arguing against a straw-man? They're extremely naive if actually believe that money wasn't a goal for others while they had un-sustainably idealized hopes. And they're forgetting the history of all technology. Bow and arrows - great for hunting! Great for war! Atomic energy - great for power! Great for powerful explosions! Electric lights - great for reading at night! Great for keeping people working through the night! Factories - great for improving everyone's quality of life! Great for reducing large portions of the population to near slavery to their jobs! It's "guns don't kill people, people kill people" all over again. You're a fool if you think something won't be corrupted by some, and equally foolish if you think everyone is corrupted. And if Wikipedia, Khan Academy, and 4chan aren't "web-2.0 social-empowerment", I'm not sure what is.
    - cageface 15y ago
      Congratulations! You've now presented a counter-argument.
      - Groxx 15y ago
        Sweet! That was easy. Look out, Internet, here I come! I'm sure some of you out there are wrong IMO, and you must be told! Maybe I'm just more irked than I should be at people who have rose-tinted glasses on (and they certainly do. to what degree is debatable, I'll leave it at that here). But I've encountered a number of people who seem not to, and they typically have incredible drive to mold the world into what they want, and rejoice in the changes they've lived through. They're almost universally fascinating, happy, energetic people. But maybe their glasses are in fact too blue(?)-tinted. Still, I'd choose that over growing bitter and immobile.
        cageface 15y ago
        FWIW I agree that "web 2.0" has brought a lot of good along with the bad. I'd be very sad if rd.io, gmail, boomkat and netflix went away.
- epochwolf 15y ago
  > What's the argument they're making? From the article: And therein lies the real problem of web 2.0 — whether it takes the form of SEO-driven “news” or crowd-sourced accommodation. To make money — real money — at this game you have to attract millions, or tens of millions, of users. And when you’re dealing with those kinds of numbers, it’s literally impossible not to treat your users as pieces of data. It’s ironic, but depressingly unsurprising, that web 2.0 is using faux socialization and democratization to create a world where everyone is reduced to a number on a spreadsheet. [emphasis mine] That's his argument. I don't agree with it but that doesn't make this a rant. [Edit] Add a comment of my own

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Groxx 15y ago

What's the argument they're making? And even if there is one, it's lost in the "the past rules, the present sucks, and the future will suck more" that permeates every sentence. Heck, arguably, every rant has an argument - having one doesn't make it not-a-rant. edit: I'm actually curious what you think it is, I don't see one aside from "don't lose your soul" - but that's not an argument. That's advice. Who, or what, are they arguing against, and what is their counter-argument?

cageface 15y ago
Really? Is this so hard? The argument in a nutshell: technology is wonderful but the initial promise of "web 2.0" has encouraged corporate greed and unethical behavior instead of empowering users as many of us had hoped. Specific recent cases of this phenomenon were cited in support of the argument. Help yourself to some rants here: http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classicrants/classicrants.html http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classicrants/classi...
- Groxx 15y ago
  So they're arguing against a straw-man? They're extremely naive if actually believe that money wasn't a goal for others while they had un-sustainably idealized hopes. And they're forgetting the history of all technology. Bow and arrows - great for hunting! Great for war! Atomic energy - great for power! Great for powerful explosions! Electric lights - great for reading at night! Great for keeping people working through the night! Factories - great for improving everyone's quality of life! Great for reducing large portions of the population to near slavery to their jobs! It's "guns don't kill people, people kill people" all over again. You're a fool if you think something won't be corrupted by some, and equally foolish if you think everyone is corrupted. And if Wikipedia, Khan Academy, and 4chan aren't "web-2.0 social-empowerment", I'm not sure what is.
  - cageface 15y ago
    Congratulations! You've now presented a counter-argument.
    - Groxx 15y ago
      Sweet! That was easy. Look out, Internet, here I come! I'm sure some of you out there are wrong IMO, and you must be told! Maybe I'm just more irked than I should be at people who have rose-tinted glasses on (and they certainly do. to what degree is debatable, I'll leave it at that here). But I've encountered a number of people who seem not to, and they typically have incredible drive to mold the world into what they want, and rejoice in the changes they've lived through. They're almost universally fascinating, happy, energetic people. But maybe their glasses are in fact too blue(?)-tinted. Still, I'd choose that over growing bitter and immobile.
      - cageface 15y ago
        FWIW I agree that "web 2.0" has brought a lot of good along with the bad. I'd be very sad if rd.io, gmail, boomkat and netflix went away.
epochwolf 15y ago
> What's the argument they're making? From the article: And therein lies the real problem of web 2.0 — whether it takes the form of SEO-driven “news” or crowd-sourced accommodation. To make money — real money — at this game you have to attract millions, or tens of millions, of users. And when you’re dealing with those kinds of numbers, it’s literally impossible not to treat your users as pieces of data. It’s ironic, but depressingly unsurprising, that web 2.0 is using faux socialization and democratization to create a world where everyone is reduced to a number on a spreadsheet. [emphasis mine] That's his argument. I don't agree with it but that doesn't make this a rant. [Edit] Add a comment of my own