3 ms·

>All the fun and weird stuff is still around, it just typically doesn't SEO well and doesn't show up on Google, and is too long-tail to show up on popularity-ba

>All the fun and weird stuff is still around, it just typically doesn't SEO well and doesn't show up on Google, and is too long-tail to show up on popularity-based algorithms like those of Reddit or Facebook. In other words, it's a bunch of dead websites and there is little incentive to create anything out of the ordinary.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
Dead in what sense?
- BrainVirus 4y ago
  The web in the 90s was an evolving, alive ecosystem. Without the ecosystem, websites that approximate something old-school are standalone entities. Flowers in a vase. They might look the same or even temporarily feel the same, but they are both authored and browsed in an entirely different context. For example, browsing a website that looks original, but is likely abandoned is a very different experience from browsing it in the 90s or early 00s when it was a part of something big, new and exciting. Even if the content is identical. The same principle applies to authoring. I have seen countless claims that all the technology that someone could use in the 90s is still available. Regardless of whether it's true or not (mostly not), it misses the point. The social project that was web 1.0 is now defunct. Paradoxically, the only way to create something equivalent to old-school web now is to invent something entirely new.
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    I don't get what you mean. That ecosystem is still alive, though. It's easy to miss because lives in the shadow of another parallel ecosystem, but it's still there, and it still roughly functions the same. Web 1.0 was and still is a fringe project by and for oddballs. Just like most people in the '90s didn't know how to get on the web, most people today can't find their way past google and social media. In that regard, it's very much still the same.

3 ms·

>All the fun and weird stuff is still around, it just typically doesn't SEO well and doesn't show up on Google, and is too long-tail to show up on popularity-ba

by BrainVirus 4y ago

marginalia_nu 4y ago
Dead in what sense?
- BrainVirus 4y ago
  The web in the 90s was an evolving, alive ecosystem. Without the ecosystem, websites that approximate something old-school are standalone entities. Flowers in a vase. They might look the same or even temporarily feel the same, but they are both authored and browsed in an entirely different context. For example, browsing a website that looks original, but is likely abandoned is a very different experience from browsing it in the 90s or early 00s when it was a part of something big, new and exciting. Even if the content is identical. The same principle applies to authoring. I have seen countless claims that all the technology that someone could use in the 90s is still available. Regardless of whether it's true or not (mostly not), it misses the point. The social project that was web 1.0 is now defunct. Paradoxically, the only way to create something equivalent to old-school web now is to invent something entirely new.
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    I don't get what you mean. That ecosystem is still alive, though. It's easy to miss because lives in the shadow of another parallel ecosystem, but it's still there, and it still roughly functions the same. Web 1.0 was and still is a fringe project by and for oddballs. Just like most people in the '90s didn't know how to get on the web, most people today can't find their way past google and social media. In that regard, it's very much still the same.