5 ms·

The argument basically boils down to "everything used to be better, and the general populace shouldn't be able to use the internet". While I have good nostalgic

The argument basically boils down to "everything used to be better, and the general populace shouldn't be able to use the internet". While I have good nostalgic feelings about the way the internet used to be, this misses a lot of things the modern internet offers our society, and only focuses on the negatives.

marginalia_nu 5y ago
Couldn't there, technically speaking, be a technology that offered the things the Internet used to offer, in parallel with the technology that offers the things the modern offers our society?
- Deukhoofd 5y ago
  There could be, and there are, but the article focuses a lot on the negative effects the modern web (and especially social media) had on society. These effects would not change with parallel systems.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    Perhaps it sounds cynical, but can't we just let things burn instead of spending all this time and energy attempting to put out the eternal dumpster fire that is the 2020s web-scape? Perhaps it isn't possible. Instead, maybe we build the replacements that we want, invite those who want a piece, sure, even put up a few signs pointing the way; but for the rest, you really can't save those who aren't looking for salvation, so let them have their technological dystopia if they can't see it for what it is.
    - Deukhoofd 5y ago
      Sure, there's systems for that, such as Gemini. If you don't want to use the modern web alongside the rest of society, it's fairly easy to just... not. https://gemini.circumlunar.space/ https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
- ryanbrunner 5y ago
  Yes, but that seems like something new we want to strive for. Going back to Web 1.0 is basically saying that 90% of people shouldn't really be able to interact with the internet in a meaningful way beyond consumption. It's not all that different than the argument that things were better when newspapers were the only ones participating in the news. The original promise of the Internet was heavily tied to democratization of publishing media. In many ways, the internet of today is far closer to that goal than the internet of the late 90s, just with a lot of backsteps and additional problems created along the way. We ought to solve those problems, but just resetting the clock back 20 years isn't a step forward.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    If the technological "improvements" over the last 20 years have largely had negative effects, wouldn't it at be possible that going forward toward something new will have even more destructive effects?
    - notriddle 5y ago
      If. Where would you even start to determine if that was true or not?
      - marginalia_nu 5y ago
        Well the point is you we can't. It's every bit as baseless to assume continuing on this path will have beneficial effects as it is to assume they will have negative effects. Change may be discovering a hundred dollars in the pocket of your old jacket, or it may be discovering an ominous lump on your neck. You really don't know what it brings.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

Couldn't there, technically speaking, be a technology that offered the things the Internet used to offer, in parallel with the technology that offers the things the modern offers our society?

Deukhoofd 5y ago
There could be, and there are, but the article focuses a lot on the negative effects the modern web (and especially social media) had on society. These effects would not change with parallel systems.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  Perhaps it sounds cynical, but can't we just let things burn instead of spending all this time and energy attempting to put out the eternal dumpster fire that is the 2020s web-scape? Perhaps it isn't possible. Instead, maybe we build the replacements that we want, invite those who want a piece, sure, even put up a few signs pointing the way; but for the rest, you really can't save those who aren't looking for salvation, so let them have their technological dystopia if they can't see it for what it is.
  - Deukhoofd 5y ago
    Sure, there's systems for that, such as Gemini. If you don't want to use the modern web alongside the rest of society, it's fairly easy to just... not. https://gemini.circumlunar.space/ https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
ryanbrunner 5y ago
Yes, but that seems like something new we want to strive for. Going back to Web 1.0 is basically saying that 90% of people shouldn't really be able to interact with the internet in a meaningful way beyond consumption. It's not all that different than the argument that things were better when newspapers were the only ones participating in the news. The original promise of the Internet was heavily tied to democratization of publishing media. In many ways, the internet of today is far closer to that goal than the internet of the late 90s, just with a lot of backsteps and additional problems created along the way. We ought to solve those problems, but just resetting the clock back 20 years isn't a step forward.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  If the technological "improvements" over the last 20 years have largely had negative effects, wouldn't it at be possible that going forward toward something new will have even more destructive effects?
  - notriddle 5y ago
    If. Where would you even start to determine if that was true or not?
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      Well the point is you we can't. It's every bit as baseless to assume continuing on this path will have beneficial effects as it is to assume they will have negative effects. Change may be discovering a hundred dollars in the pocket of your old jacket, or it may be discovering an ominous lump on your neck. You really don't know what it brings.