5 ms·

Example #732453111 of how the 2000's-era dreams of technology-enabled infinite scaling were misguided and potentially damning for the Internet. Turns out scamm

Example #732453111 of how the 2000's-era dreams of technology-enabled infinite scaling were misguided and potentially damning for the Internet. Turns out scammers and spammers can technologically scale their side too, and can even do so in a way that the host profits from so that the host is disincentivized from doing anything about it until it's already gone too far. Now everything is flooded with noise and supported by ads and meaningful human participation in content approval or customer service is infeasible because we're already on the far side of the transition and they can't match the established scale. Whoops!

MR4D 3y ago
Clearly we didn't think this through back then. It should have been obvious to us that it is easier to create noise than it is to create signal. The idyllic dream of a free internet with long tails would be replaced with a steadily worsening signal to noise ratio. We cheered on when Google supplanted Yahoo! because the computers were better at curating than humans. Man, we clearly sucked at choosing the right path. Dreams of utopia always hit hard when they fall.
- ori_b 3y ago
  *looks nervously at the AI revolution*
  - al_borland 3y ago
    It seems a lot of people see the issues of AI coming, maybe not all of them, but certainly some. Too bad so many people and blinded by potential profits to care.
    - munk-a 3y ago
      Unfortunately all the people with money can see nothing but upsides.
      - wildrhythms 3y ago
        It's the same people that gave us pop-up ads, and now on-page pop-up ads.
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      the issues of AI are pretty much the same issues of "software eating the world" and the internet, only more of it, so it's not that hard to be prescient on this matter.
  - VHRanger 3y ago
    AI content generation is only different in scale to content farms. Not in principle. All this means is that relying on an algo to filter things for you will become less useful (easy to game). You'll need to rely more on real humans you actually trust.
    - blululu 3y ago
      That’s sort of like saying a ripple and a tsunami are the same thing and they differ only in terms of energy, or New York City only differs from Utica in scale. Maybe it is true in some technical sense, but that is missing a lot of important information. Being able to churn out content fast, cheaper and with algorithmic optimizations starts to look like a different beast. The level at which human overrides can keep this process in check has a limit and it can be inundated. New solutions will be needed.
isx726552 3y ago
This is why gatekeepers are still a good thing, and now the gatekeepers are themselves somewhat democratized. Lots of people now have their favorite YouTuber / Podcaster / etc. and get book recommendations from them. And there is now a much bigger selection of gatekeepers to choose from given the variety of content on those platforms. It’s not perfect, but overall it is an improvement in many ways. Now yes I would agree that a fully flat, bottom up, “everyone is a publisher” world where everyone is on equal footing (including the spammers) is impractical, but then again who ever said that would happen or work if it did? It remains to be seen what effect genAI has on all this, though. Long term, it seems likely that the need for gatekeeping will only increase due to the inevitable flood of more and more generated junk.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Exactly, I would never go to Amazon to look for books. I go to Amazon to buy a specific book. I already know what I want, Amazon is just the place I order it. Some stuff is also Amazon exclusive.
- pavel_lishin 3y ago
  I don't think that "gatekeeper" is the correct term for what you're describing. Isn't it closer to "influencer", or "taste-maker"?
  - swatcoder 3y ago
    Curator. But otherwise, they're right. Curation and informal trust networks are the only way out.
- al_borland 3y ago
  I’ve been trying to divest from Amazon as a source for products, and am looking to use more traditional stores to curate my options. They have buyers that vet stuff to some degree, and if the product is bad, they’ll take it back. If enough people think it’s bad, they’ll stop selling it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
GuB-42 3y ago
I prefer it like that than how it was before. Sure, lots of noise, but lots of signal too. Meaningful human participation in content approval is still possible of course, with social networks. It can go from getting recommendation from an influencer you align with (for once "influencer" is an appropriate term), or join a community, for example on a Discord server, or for something more public, Reddit. For customer service, Amazon is surprisingly human, at least for the few times I had to deal with them, but generally, it is something you have to pay for, and most people don't want to, but if you do, you can get a human on line. But the most important part is that you can explore now the wild on your own. Of course, you will be bombarded with noise, but the stuff is there for you to find. Before, it was made much more complicated. For example, now, getting a book in a foreign language may be one click away, before that, you had to hunt for some specialized bookstores, regular bookstores only have best sellers, and ordering, if successful, was slow and sometimes expensive. So, sure, few garbage books, but also a much more limited choice of good books.
alexashka 3y ago
Take it to its root, the only reason we have spammers is because people who control technology instead of reducing work hours created marketing and advertising agencies to create artificial desire to buy useless garbage. If you think spammers are the problem, you're missing the bigger picture, by a lot. Technology should've brought about fewer work hours, instead it brought about mass insanity.

MR4D 3y ago

Clearly we didn't think this through back then. It should have been obvious to us that it is easier to create noise than it is to create signal. The idyllic dream of a free internet with long tails would be replaced with a steadily worsening signal to noise ratio. We cheered on when Google supplanted Yahoo! because the computers were better at curating than humans. Man, we clearly sucked at choosing the right path. Dreams of utopia always hit hard when they fall.

ori_b 3y ago
*looks nervously at the AI revolution*
- al_borland 3y ago
  It seems a lot of people see the issues of AI coming, maybe not all of them, but certainly some. Too bad so many people and blinded by potential profits to care.
  - munk-a 3y ago
    Unfortunately all the people with money can see nothing but upsides.
    - wildrhythms 3y ago
      It's the same people that gave us pop-up ads, and now on-page pop-up ads.
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    the issues of AI are pretty much the same issues of "software eating the world" and the internet, only more of it, so it's not that hard to be prescient on this matter.
- VHRanger 3y ago
  AI content generation is only different in scale to content farms. Not in principle. All this means is that relying on an algo to filter things for you will become less useful (easy to game). You'll need to rely more on real humans you actually trust.
  - blululu 3y ago
    That’s sort of like saying a ripple and a tsunami are the same thing and they differ only in terms of energy, or New York City only differs from Utica in scale. Maybe it is true in some technical sense, but that is missing a lot of important information. Being able to churn out content fast, cheaper and with algorithmic optimizations starts to look like a different beast. The level at which human overrides can keep this process in check has a limit and it can be inundated. New solutions will be needed.

isx726552 3y ago

This is why gatekeepers are still a good thing, and now the gatekeepers are themselves somewhat democratized. Lots of people now have their favorite YouTuber / Podcaster / etc. and get book recommendations from them. And there is now a much bigger selection of gatekeepers to choose from given the variety of content on those platforms. It’s not perfect, but overall it is an improvement in many ways. Now yes I would agree that a fully flat, bottom up, “everyone is a publisher” world where everyone is on equal footing (including the spammers) is impractical, but then again who ever said that would happen or work if it did? It remains to be seen what effect genAI has on all this, though. Long term, it seems likely that the need for gatekeeping will only increase due to the inevitable flood of more and more generated junk.

panick21_ 3y ago
Exactly, I would never go to Amazon to look for books. I go to Amazon to buy a specific book. I already know what I want, Amazon is just the place I order it. Some stuff is also Amazon exclusive.
pavel_lishin 3y ago
I don't think that "gatekeeper" is the correct term for what you're describing. Isn't it closer to "influencer", or "taste-maker"?
- swatcoder 3y ago
  Curator. But otherwise, they're right. Curation and informal trust networks are the only way out.
al_borland 3y ago
I’ve been trying to divest from Amazon as a source for products, and am looking to use more traditional stores to curate my options. They have buyers that vet stuff to some degree, and if the product is bad, they’ll take it back. If enough people think it’s bad, they’ll stop selling it.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

GuB-42 3y ago

I prefer it like that than how it was before. Sure, lots of noise, but lots of signal too. Meaningful human participation in content approval is still possible of course, with social networks. It can go from getting recommendation from an influencer you align with (for once "influencer" is an appropriate term), or join a community, for example on a Discord server, or for something more public, Reddit. For customer service, Amazon is surprisingly human, at least for the few times I had to deal with them, but generally, it is something you have to pay for, and most people don't want to, but if you do, you can get a human on line. But the most important part is that you can explore now the wild on your own. Of course, you will be bombarded with noise, but the stuff is there for you to find. Before, it was made much more complicated. For example, now, getting a book in a foreign language may be one click away, before that, you had to hunt for some specialized bookstores, regular bookstores only have best sellers, and ordering, if successful, was slow and sometimes expensive. So, sure, few garbage books, but also a much more limited choice of good books.

alexashka 3y ago

Take it to its root, the only reason we have spammers is because people who control technology instead of reducing work hours created marketing and advertising agencies to create artificial desire to buy useless garbage. If you think spammers are the problem, you're missing the bigger picture, by a lot. Technology should've brought about fewer work hours, instead it brought about mass insanity.