opinion: The "free" model of services arose because there was no way to monetize services, and micropayments still don't exist decades later. So, entrepreneurs

opinion: The "free" model of services arose because there was no way to monetize services, and micropayments still don't exist decades later. So, entrepreneurs plucked the low-hanging fruit of advertising, robbing old media. Advertising depends on large numbers (or targeting) so the "network effect" drove gigantic sites where you deal with vastly more than Dunbar's Number (150), which is the maximum number of relationships we can maintain at once. [1] Along with this, came the idea of "targeted" ads, so there's a double whammy. You're exposed to more people than you can relate to, and being surveilled as well. Then news feeds (who asked for news feeds?) led to echo chambers and psychological engagement tricks. Three strikes. "But that's the price of free", you say. However, the internet is not free. Everyone pays to access it, and unlike a cable provider, you get zero "premium" content for the often outrageous prices that ISP's charge. Libraries? Governments pay for libraries and you pay governments. Further, the effects above have turned the "network of networks" model of the internet inside out, so it's more like the old "There are Three TV networks" model than a lot of friendly and truly social networks. And like cable, which was touted to be "ad-free", you got ads anyway, as do many sites that you pay good money to visit. Ad money is addictive, and we the users, get all the side effects. I attribute the above to the enshittification of computers long ago, being overly complex, shipped with unstable software rushed out the door to compete in "feature wars" (This has been a big deal since the 80's) and beyond the average person's ability to maintain. Hence, more centralization via giant websites (which also crash and burn, but someone else gets to fix it) Now that bots and AI are flooding the internet (and online bookstores) with the power of a million monkeys each with a supercomputer, a turning point has been reached. And I'll defer to other posts which quote people in the know who say that it's time to turn this mess around. How? Well, that's up to you and me, with the goal of quality of life for ourselves and billions of others ahead of fast bucks. There were two articles posted here, and my replies. We Need to re-wild the internet [2] Why do negative topics dominate social media sites, even here? [3] --- Reply to the first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40055120#40056621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40055120#40056621 Wild is good as long as it's not wild as in battlefield. It's not like you get diverse opinions; no matter what you post, you get warring factions, vulgar insults, and sometimes, death threats. And bots. Anil Dash argues [5] that things can be better in not so wide-open communities. And then there’s someone like Darius Kazemi, a computer programmer and community organizer who has been patiently toiling away building tools that let others build healthy, constructive, human-scale online communities — the sort that are full of acts of kindness and genuine connection, instead of incessant fights about hate speech. There’s been a huge uptick in interest in Darius’ work as networks like Twitter have fallen apart, and a new generation discovers the joys of an internet that’s as intimate and connected as a friendly neighborhood. And this hearkens back to that surprising, and delightful, discovery that often underpinned the internet of a generation ago — sometimes the entire platform you were using to talk to others was just being run by one, passionate person. We’re seeing the biggest return to that human-run, personal-scale web that we’ve witnessed since the turn of the millennium, with enough momentum that it’s likely that 2024 is the first year since then that many people have the experience of making a new connection or seeing something go viral on a platform that’s being run by a regular person instead of a commercial entity. It’s going to make a lot of new things possible. I have had ideas for a different internet -- a network of networks. Since Stewart Brand and Ted Nelson and Kevin Kelly, technology was meant to empower and liberate people. Only a handful actually do, as in Wikipedia. People have enormous computing power in their computers and mobile devices. It often just liberates cash from their pockets. Time to reinvent. I'll share ideas later. No need for the crap: [6] Well, things changed a little bit in tech of late. Often, the power shifts in the tech world because of a dramatic new invention that solves an old problem a whole lot better. But in the current era, when most of what's getting funded and hyped up are just various attempts to undermine workers and control consumers, we're instead seeing lots of major players lose power because their signature offerings have gotten so much worse. Search engines are becoming far more useless as they attempt to chase AI hype and shoehorn in less reliable results, even as their legitimate search results get cluttered up with AI-generated crap. The most culturally influential social network has had its cultural relevance destroyed by its billionaire man-child owner's tantrum-based managemenet style. And the major mobile phone platforms overplayed their hand so badly in exerting power over their app ecosystems that regulators around the globe have responded by prying open these heretofore-closed markets. Time for a network of networks, not a network of 4 or 5 castles surrounded by serfs. --- Reply to the second: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40054131#40054911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40054131#40054911 A Psychologist Explains Four Reasons the Internet Feels So Broken [4] Short: Number one is that negativity drives engagement. Number two, extremism drives engagement online. Number three, out-group animosity drives engagement online. And number four, moral, emotional language drives engagement online. Negativity "clicks", for mostly "old brain" reasons. You say things anonymously that you would never say real person to real person. Social media are a (mostly) no-consequence wide-open "mud" sling. Anil Dash argues [5] that things can be better in not so wide-open communities. (See above) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40055120 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40055120 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40054131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40054131 [4] https://www.theringer.com/2024/4/9/24124973/psychologist-jay-van-bavel-explains-four-reasons-the-internet-feels-broken-negativity-bias https://www.theringer.com/2024/4/9/24124973/psychologist-jay... [5] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/internet-future-about-to-get-weird-1234938403/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/inte... [6] https://www.anildash.com//2024/01/03/human-web-renaissance/ https://www.anildash.com//2024/01/03/human-web-renaissance/ Bonus: [7] You saw it here first: "A million monkeys with supercomputers" [8] Apologies if I got references mixed up. Who'll contribute to the "human-run, personal-scale web"?