5 ms·

Small private communities are contrary to some of the most important, biggest promises of the Internet (and the web): that it would be open and really big. It w

Small private communities are contrary to some of the most important, biggest promises of the Internet (and the web): that it would be open and really big. It was supposed to be a place where some kid in rural Africa with only 8 years of schooling could learn how to be a software developer, or where people could naturally find and join communities too small to have a local presence (eg people really into collecting vacuum cleaners). I don't think it's just an advertising/cancel culture problem. It's partially a problem with the internet being so decentralized that spammers and scammers can operate with impunity, pushing a ton of work onto people running online communities because countries like India and Russia don't properly go after cybercriminals - even if someone SaaSified forums, this is still a significant burden. It's also kind of a UI problem: if Google search starts to suck and gets filled with trash, as has happened, it breaks the core pull-model of the web. If Reddit starts to suck and get filled with trash, as has happened, it breaks the core push-model of the web. Together the two kind of Embraced-Extended-Extinguished the web, but maybe something like an RSS reader, different web client (eg a browser that didn't nudge you into making google queries as the main way to operate it), and more capable search engine would be able to fix these.

squigz 2y ago
I'm not sure that GP meant entirely private communities - rather something like, for example, Discord communities, or online forums, where people can still join, but it's not entirely "public" in the sense of Twitter or the like.
avh02 2y ago
> that it would be open and really big. I think that was the aspiration, but nobody realized there were so many people who thought 5G caused corona (and similar lack of thought process) until it was too late.
- ruszki 2y ago
  To rephrase it differently: it was not anticipated that the great majority of people cannot handle the amount of information, which is required for thoughtful decisions, that they happy to accept obvious contradictions to avoid self-reflection, and that they lack even basic suspicion of information's validity. We were naive to think that they can choose, or even want to choose between options, that they want to be free from central agencies to tell them what to think. We really thought that The Long Tail would happen in everything. But hey, those people won greatly, who can and want.
- leovingi 2y ago
  >so many people who thought 5G caused corona literally nobody thought this, perhaps except a handful of oddballs. If you want to make your case for describing the state of the internet, please avoid nonsense exaggerations like this.
  - avh02 2y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/technology/coronavirus-5g-uk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/technology/coronavirus-5g... oddballs, i agree. but a dangerous group of oddballs. > Across Britain, more than 30 acts of arson and vandalism have taken place against wireless towers and other telecom gear this month, according to police reports and a telecom trade group. In roughly 80 other incidents in the country, telecom technicians have been harassed on the job. that is not a small number, we discuss smaller things on HN. And these are only the cases that have manifested in to arson or harassment, so includes zero couch conspiracy theorists.
  - Ylpertnodi 2y ago
    >literally nobody thought this, perhaps except a handful of oddballs. So not literally nobody?
    - leovingi 2y ago
      Given that the original comment implied that the reason we could not have an "open and really big" internet is because of the handful of oddballs that thought 5G towers caused Corona, yes, it might as well be literally nobody.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        The number shouldn't matter though. We can have an open and big internet regardless of how many people believe in ideas that seem to be batshit crazy to the average person. Who cares what someone else chooses to think or believe?
      - avh02 2y ago
        you can still have an open and really big internet with these people, the question is if it remains anything like the bastion of great thought the "open and really big" part implies (along with the example provided in the original post I was replying to)
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Oh people have known for a long time that the average person has crazy ideas. There's a reason the US election system isn't by popular vote, our founders believed that "the mob" couldn't be trusted and there needed to be a electoral escape hatch to make sure reasonable people were elected. With that said, what's the problem with people having ideas that seem crazy and baseless? Does it really harm you at all if someone else believes 5G causes covid? And does it harm you enough to say that their speech should be limited rather than free?
  - lapphi 2y ago
    “The mob” being the voting citizens of a free and open democratic society, of course. Interesting point of view/source of internal tension there.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Yeah for sure. Revolutions are messy and its easy to lose sight of that when you're on the winning side. I'm personally very glad to not live under a imperial monarchy, but I do wish the founders could have kept their concerns over voters out of the way. There are historical examples of why trusting the mob goes poorly, but keeping that on the table fundamentally ruins the point of a democratic society. Its all well and good to say we need an educated populace, but the system should offer the public a chance to live up to the ideal rather than guard against their failure.
      - kjkjadksj 2y ago
        I don’t think the founding fathers much less the ancient greek democrats anticipated the level of idiocy in the public discourse we are dealing with today. A huge swath of the country has been manipulated by propaganda to the point of not believing in reality at all. It’s a dangerous position we find ourselves in today.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        I think the founding fathers actually had a more educates populace than we do today. For all the modern education and fields of study we have today, is the level of idiocy an anomaly or is it a symptom of of modern education?
tpm 2y ago
> kid in rural Africa with only 8 years of schooling could learn how to be a software developer Small and private does not necessarily imply exclusive. There are such communities where you can easily join or lurk. > or where people could naturally find and join communities too small to have a local presence And that still works for me like that. They might not be visible on the first results page but once you start to research a topic in depth you can find them.
treflop 2y ago
I honestly don’t agree with most of the doomsayers of the Internet. Sure, there is way more advertising and bots these days but there is WAY more content available today than 10 years ago or 20 years ago. Definitely way more diversity of content too.
Akronymus 2y ago
> Small private communities are contrary to some of the most important, biggest promises of the Internet (and the web): that it would be open and really big. The many forums that existed fulfilled both of those. Open to read for anyone, really big in aggregate and mostly small and private communities of participants.
- account42 2y ago
  Some of them even still exist.
nickdothutton 2y ago
> Small private communities are contrary to some of the most important, biggest promises of the Internet (and the web) I fully agree with you there. This is why I remarked on the private (or perhaps better said, semi-private) nature of forums/chats I use with high SnR today. I’m disappointed it has gone this way, but then the 90s was a long time ago now and I was certainly more naive then. To draw an analogy, I think distance/privacy brings its own benefits. There’s a reason the corporate giants of the 50s, 60s, and 70s put their research campus away from the main HQ centre of gravity. In the late 80s/early-90s, it was quite a “hike” to get to the Internet. Either you were at University or as in my case, you had to get modem, cable, KA9Q, terminal emulator, Kermit, rz/sz, etc working together to reach it. Even when browsers became a thing, you may have needed to compile one, or get Winsock working if on a Pee Cee.

squigz 2y ago

I'm not sure that GP meant entirely private communities - rather something like, for example, Discord communities, or online forums, where people can still join, but it's not entirely "public" in the sense of Twitter or the like.

avh02 2y ago

> that it would be open and really big. I think that was the aspiration, but nobody realized there were so many people who thought 5G caused corona (and similar lack of thought process) until it was too late.

ruszki 2y ago
To rephrase it differently: it was not anticipated that the great majority of people cannot handle the amount of information, which is required for thoughtful decisions, that they happy to accept obvious contradictions to avoid self-reflection, and that they lack even basic suspicion of information's validity. We were naive to think that they can choose, or even want to choose between options, that they want to be free from central agencies to tell them what to think. We really thought that The Long Tail would happen in everything. But hey, those people won greatly, who can and want.
leovingi 2y ago
>so many people who thought 5G caused corona literally nobody thought this, perhaps except a handful of oddballs. If you want to make your case for describing the state of the internet, please avoid nonsense exaggerations like this.
- avh02 2y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/technology/coronavirus-5g-uk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/technology/coronavirus-5g... oddballs, i agree. but a dangerous group of oddballs. > Across Britain, more than 30 acts of arson and vandalism have taken place against wireless towers and other telecom gear this month, according to police reports and a telecom trade group. In roughly 80 other incidents in the country, telecom technicians have been harassed on the job. that is not a small number, we discuss smaller things on HN. And these are only the cases that have manifested in to arson or harassment, so includes zero couch conspiracy theorists.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  >literally nobody thought this, perhaps except a handful of oddballs. So not literally nobody?
  - leovingi 2y ago
    Given that the original comment implied that the reason we could not have an "open and really big" internet is because of the handful of oddballs that thought 5G towers caused Corona, yes, it might as well be literally nobody.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      The number shouldn't matter though. We can have an open and big internet regardless of how many people believe in ideas that seem to be batshit crazy to the average person. Who cares what someone else chooses to think or believe?
    - avh02 2y ago
      you can still have an open and really big internet with these people, the question is if it remains anything like the bastion of great thought the "open and really big" part implies (along with the example provided in the original post I was replying to)
_heimdall 2y ago
Oh people have known for a long time that the average person has crazy ideas. There's a reason the US election system isn't by popular vote, our founders believed that "the mob" couldn't be trusted and there needed to be a electoral escape hatch to make sure reasonable people were elected. With that said, what's the problem with people having ideas that seem crazy and baseless? Does it really harm you at all if someone else believes 5G causes covid? And does it harm you enough to say that their speech should be limited rather than free?
- lapphi 2y ago
  “The mob” being the voting citizens of a free and open democratic society, of course. Interesting point of view/source of internal tension there.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Yeah for sure. Revolutions are messy and its easy to lose sight of that when you're on the winning side. I'm personally very glad to not live under a imperial monarchy, but I do wish the founders could have kept their concerns over voters out of the way. There are historical examples of why trusting the mob goes poorly, but keeping that on the table fundamentally ruins the point of a democratic society. Its all well and good to say we need an educated populace, but the system should offer the public a chance to live up to the ideal rather than guard against their failure.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      I don’t think the founding fathers much less the ancient greek democrats anticipated the level of idiocy in the public discourse we are dealing with today. A huge swath of the country has been manipulated by propaganda to the point of not believing in reality at all. It’s a dangerous position we find ourselves in today.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        I think the founding fathers actually had a more educates populace than we do today. For all the modern education and fields of study we have today, is the level of idiocy an anomaly or is it a symptom of of modern education?

tpm 2y ago

> kid in rural Africa with only 8 years of schooling could learn how to be a software developer Small and private does not necessarily imply exclusive. There are such communities where you can easily join or lurk. > or where people could naturally find and join communities too small to have a local presence And that still works for me like that. They might not be visible on the first results page but once you start to research a topic in depth you can find them.

treflop 2y ago

I honestly don’t agree with most of the doomsayers of the Internet. Sure, there is way more advertising and bots these days but there is WAY more content available today than 10 years ago or 20 years ago. Definitely way more diversity of content too.

Akronymus 2y ago

> Small private communities are contrary to some of the most important, biggest promises of the Internet (and the web): that it would be open and really big. The many forums that existed fulfilled both of those. Open to read for anyone, really big in aggregate and mostly small and private communities of participants.

account42 2y ago
Some of them even still exist.

nickdothutton 2y ago

> Small private communities are contrary to some of the most important, biggest promises of the Internet (and the web) I fully agree with you there. This is why I remarked on the private (or perhaps better said, semi-private) nature of forums/chats I use with high SnR today. I’m disappointed it has gone this way, but then the 90s was a long time ago now and I was certainly more naive then. To draw an analogy, I think distance/privacy brings its own benefits. There’s a reason the corporate giants of the 50s, 60s, and 70s put their research campus away from the main HQ centre of gravity. In the late 80s/early-90s, it was quite a “hike” to get to the Internet. Either you were at University or as in my case, you had to get modem, cable, KA9Q, terminal emulator, Kermit, rz/sz, etc working together to reach it. Even when browsers became a thing, you may have needed to compile one, or get Winsock working if on a Pee Cee.