5 ms·
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
by 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 agoIf 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 agoIf. Where would you even start to determine if that was true or not?
- marginalia_nu 5y agoWell 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.