3 ms·

I have sympathy with the authors' position, and the "the web should just be documents" crowd. There is nothing wrong with SSR. There is nothing wrong with you h

I have sympathy with the authors' position, and the "the web should just be documents" crowd. There is nothing wrong with SSR. There is nothing wrong with you having mobile or desktop apps that provide rich interactivity and feedback. But we have turned a document based medium into an ugly monster because we're squeezing stuff in for privacy-invading rent-seekers. I don't mind people being paid for their work, and I don't mind paying them, but why does progress/evolution need to involve terrible, horrible technologies that break accessibility, privacy and the integrity of the medium? Why can't Google just go build a new technology and leave the web alone? Why are we all marching to the drum of adtech, like there is no alternative?

Bluestein 2y ago
I think you have very succinctly stated a reasonable "compromise", as it were, and clarified the (many) issues here ... > Why can't Google just go build a new technology and leave the web alone? ... or develop within the medium, as is or as "it should be", this later desiderata being guided by open, agreed-upon "standards", with input by all stakeholders.- > Why are we all marching to the drum of adtech, like there is no alternative? In a way - and I am sure this is an "overdetermined" issue - not only because of "monetization": The web, has never developed a sufficiently workable "micropayments" solution (for example) as a compensatory mechanism for stakeholders adding value ... ... so advertising became a sort of default. Downhill from there ...
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  > The web, has never developed a sufficiently workable "micropayments" solution Is this just because payment processors make it non-viable? I used to think crypto would come and rescue us in this regard, but it hasn't yet. I also liked the old readability model (pay a fixed monthly amount which gets distributed among sites you visit) but that didn't make it either.
  - Bluestein 2y ago
    It's a curious thing, on all of the three counts you (aptly) mention ... I think it has to do with "legacy" financial costs "granfathered" into electronic payments by existing processors (VISA, etc), preventing costs from being low enough to warrant micropayments even existing ... ... and, no, web 3.0 and crypto has not made it (balcanization, lack of critical mass) ... ... as to the loss of the third model (fixed, monthly), the loss of that is puzzling. Might have to do with "freemium" being the (initial) web's "default" model, and friction being enough to chock it (stop it) at or before birth ... ... and pricing: Subscriptions (at least at first) were too highly priced. That appears to be changing.-
    - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
      > friction being enough to chock it ... Subscriptions (at least at first) were too highly priced I totally agree. Subscribing to one site for, say, $5/month doesn't seem that onerous, and if it's a really, really good source of information, may be worth it. But subscribing to every website that I might want to visit a few times each month? Forget it. It's like the 'X different streaming services' problem writ much, much larger. This is why I had so much hope in the readability approach — $5 in total, the site I visit most might get $2.50, then the next gets $1, etc.
      - Bluestein 2y ago
        That approach would have worked, probably.- Indeed, what you mention (death by a thousand cuts) is an issue ... ... for the sake of argument, however, you then end "back on square one", so to speak, with a "centralized" "gatekeeper" for content ... ... so, what to do (maybe): An open standard for pre-paid balances that is interoperable, as a sort of "pay-per-rss-article" standard, with standarized pricing. But, good luck with any of that ...
      - Bluestein 2y ago
        PS. This is making the HN rounds and looks promising IMHO ... - https://l402.org/ https://l402.org/

Bluestein 2y ago

I think you have very succinctly stated a reasonable "compromise", as it were, and clarified the (many) issues here ... > Why can't Google just go build a new technology and leave the web alone? ... or develop within the medium, as is or as "it should be", this later desiderata being guided by open, agreed-upon "standards", with input by all stakeholders.- > Why are we all marching to the drum of adtech, like there is no alternative? In a way - and I am sure this is an "overdetermined" issue - not only because of "monetization": The web, has never developed a sufficiently workable "micropayments" solution (for example) as a compensatory mechanism for stakeholders adding value ... ... so advertising became a sort of default. Downhill from there ...

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
> The web, has never developed a sufficiently workable "micropayments" solution Is this just because payment processors make it non-viable? I used to think crypto would come and rescue us in this regard, but it hasn't yet. I also liked the old readability model (pay a fixed monthly amount which gets distributed among sites you visit) but that didn't make it either.
- Bluestein 2y ago
  It's a curious thing, on all of the three counts you (aptly) mention ... I think it has to do with "legacy" financial costs "granfathered" into electronic payments by existing processors (VISA, etc), preventing costs from being low enough to warrant micropayments even existing ... ... and, no, web 3.0 and crypto has not made it (balcanization, lack of critical mass) ... ... as to the loss of the third model (fixed, monthly), the loss of that is puzzling. Might have to do with "freemium" being the (initial) web's "default" model, and friction being enough to chock it (stop it) at or before birth ... ... and pricing: Subscriptions (at least at first) were too highly priced. That appears to be changing.-
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    > friction being enough to chock it ... Subscriptions (at least at first) were too highly priced I totally agree. Subscribing to one site for, say, $5/month doesn't seem that onerous, and if it's a really, really good source of information, may be worth it. But subscribing to every website that I might want to visit a few times each month? Forget it. It's like the 'X different streaming services' problem writ much, much larger. This is why I had so much hope in the readability approach — $5 in total, the site I visit most might get $2.50, then the next gets $1, etc.
    - Bluestein 2y ago
      That approach would have worked, probably.- Indeed, what you mention (death by a thousand cuts) is an issue ... ... for the sake of argument, however, you then end "back on square one", so to speak, with a "centralized" "gatekeeper" for content ... ... so, what to do (maybe): An open standard for pre-paid balances that is interoperable, as a sort of "pay-per-rss-article" standard, with standarized pricing. But, good luck with any of that ...
    - Bluestein 2y ago
      PS. This is making the HN rounds and looks promising IMHO ... - https://l402.org/ https://l402.org/