5 ms·

Something is wrong on the Internet

74 points by toss1 2y ago

jl6 2y ago
This blog post seems to be mostly quotes from this original article: https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-49/essays/casual-viewing/ https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-49/essays/casual-viewing/
- nmstoker 2y ago
  Yes, as the author indicated: >> I have a lot of thoughts about both, but here I’m just going to throw out a few quotes, encourage you to read them, and suggest a couple of things.
tptacek 2y ago
It's weird to see a case like this being made on streaming services, which have produced a world-historic surplus of high-quality scripted series. People have very strange ideas about how vibrant film and television was in the era immediately preceding streaming.
- piva00 2y ago
  I clearly remember how much better quality the writing of HBO's series were in the late 1990s/early 2000s compared to almost anything else. Even when compared to contemporaries with great writers (e.g.: Aaron Sorkin writing "The West Wing") the quality of HBO's writing was unmatched. Nowadays that style and quality is just expected from one of the bigger drama series in any streaming service. Agree with you it's quite strange how people seem to have rose coloured glasses from that era.
  - richk449 2y ago
    I’m not sure that the writing quality is the point. A better question to ask whether the creator has something they are trying to convey. It can be something artistic, or philosophical, or ethical, or none-of-the-above, but there is something there someone behind the series believes in. So much of what is on Netflix feels like a Hallmark Special with better writing and cinematography. It’s still empty calories.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Right, but that's because Netflix produces a lot of content; if you're comparing the output of Netflix to that of FX, you're doing apples/oranges. If you select out just the high-effort stuff, they're doing great.
      - richk449 2y ago
        Has recent Netflix done anything that comes close to The Wire? Or to Breaking Bad?
        tptacek 2y ago
        Has Netflix done anything that comes close to the first and third greatest television shows of all time? No. They did Black Mirror, Stranger Things (hey: season 5 of The Wire was no great shakes either), BoJack, the Flanagan halloween miniserieses, Dark Crystal, and most recently Man on the Inside. Those are just the things I personally appreciate. They're holding their own with FX, which is not a small achievement.
        richk449 2y ago
        So what is number 2? Black mirror was a British show first. I don’t know the others except for Man on the Inside - I’m skeptical, but if it turns out to as good as The Good Place, it will be impressive for Netflix.
        tptacek 2y ago
        Saul, of course. Netflix commissioned most of Black Mirror. Man on the Inside is better than Good Place (and than any Only Murders season but the first).
    - smackeyacky 2y ago
      Maybe people like dreck. Before the internet, Mills & Boon used to sell a hell of a lot of cheap paperbacks with much the same story in them. Or Arthur Hiller books. None of it was even approaching art but it sold well and people liked it. A lot of the accusations that "Netflix is 99% dreck" is reflected in the top 10 list they handily generate for you. It simply means to me that I don't look on Netflix for something to watch, having seen the garbage getting watched on there. It says more about me than Netflix though and being judgy about other peoples taste shouldn't be mistaken for diagnosing the internets enshittification. These things are not the same.
- agilob 2y ago
  Check this list out: 1994 Top 50 Movies https://www.imdb.com/list/ls076329509/ https://www.imdb.com/list/ls076329509/ You can recognise every of these movies by title Here TOP 50 movies list has no title from big streaming services: https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/ https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Really. You've watched Ed Wood sometime within the last 10 years? The Last Seduction? Wolf? Red Rock West? That's just from the top 10 in that list. I don't know what the point of your second list is. It's never been the case that streamers or cable channels (their nearest antecedent) were big producers of movies. But streamers --- unlike cable channels --- did manage to produce CODA, Killers of the Flower Moon, The Irishman, Buster Scruggs, Roma, Dolemite, and Glass Onion.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      This is just some guy's top 50 favorite movies. And if you'd gone just one year further, to 1995, you'd have gotten Heat, Braveheart, Casino, 12 Monkeys, The Usual Suspects, and Toy Story. The Basketball Diaries doesn't hold up, at all, but Apollo 13 was great. (I will stick up for Heat, but my god, the shoulder pads).
  - Root_Denied 2y ago
    Top Rated movies aren't 1:1 with how much money the movie made. The incentives here are for these companies to make money, either through box office numbers or by increasing (and retaining) subscribers. They don't need to make a top 50 of all time movie to make a profit, and usually they're not trying to anyway.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > streaming services, which have produced a world-historic surplus of high-quality scripted series. No, they're almost all terrible and as far as I can tell most people can't find anything new to watch, or if they're lucky they can find one or two things to almost get into. The trick is that there's no way to find out how many people are watching things any more, and that keeping your subscription going is binary. You can accumulate a huge amount of personal dissatisfaction before actually cancelling. The main thing I'm hearing about these grossly padded, awful series, is that after people get interested by the pilot, they increasingly start fast forwarding through more and more of the episodes until they're consuming them so quickly they might as well be watching a digest of the "previously on...", until they get so disgusted by the repeated slights to their intelligence that even this they can't even stomach. Giving up a subscription also means giving up the archive of the "vibrant film and television" from "the era immediately preceding streaming," that even though they may have seen it before, is pleasant to leave playing in the background. Production values are very high. Dialog is sometimes very good. Series are high-concept, but empty, endless and awful, and I even feel sorry for the writers that have to keep generating scenes with one character walking up to another character who is busy working on something and says: "how are you holding up?" There are going to be five of those in this episode, and maybe one thing that advances the plot. Apple TV has all the money in the world, and just generates clumsy high-priced disasters. I have no idea how bad the corporate culture can be in these places to actively repel any story that is any good. I think the problem is that they're not making enough cheapo series where talent could accidentally sneak in because no one was paying attention.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    I'll put a list of the top series of 2023 up against 2005 cheerfully.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
I highly highly recommend the late Mark Fischer's Capitalist Realism. There's no good reason why the internet needs to be this bad.... aside from an irrational demand for continual returns, damn the cost to humanity. There are, in fact, better ways to run society than begging the rich to care about the rest of us. Anyone who says alternatives to capitalism are unrealistic are lying to your face.
- smitty1e 2y ago
  I fully agree that Socialism is a simpler and more beautiful approach. What I haven't seen is Socialism scaling in any sustainable way above, roughly, Dunbar's Number[1]. I submit, looking at human history, that the non-scalabity is intrinsic, and that capitalism is relatively less-worse approach. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
  - immibis 2y ago
    The word "socialism" really means "everything that isn't capitalism, and has a more equitable distribution of resources". Making socialism work just means making something other than capitalism work, and there are lots of ideas out there.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      Ideas which will thankfully remain suppressed due to their socialist association. We know what happened when a socialist party with new ideas took over Germany in the early 30s, and have collectively decided the new ideas can take a hike.
      - thrance 2y ago
        Look up Hitler's views on socialism before speaking such nonsense here. The socialists and communists were the first to go under nazi leadership.
suryajena 2y ago
It's true and horrifying at the same time. I find similar disregard to customers in other traditional innovations as well like credit cards and their rewards, not at all beneficial to the average user, similarly insurance products that keep finding ways to increase your premium with add-ons and riders in every unimaginably creative ways that doesn't serve the customer any value just confuses people and prompts them to hire advisors and pay them. Take the microwave ovens and refrigerators with full on PCs with WiFi inside them serving nothing useful just more mild convenience I suppose and more price. And take Software like windows, that keeps pushing higher hardware requirements forcing users to upgrade hardware and its just everywhere in our lives not just the internet now. Take tax filing portals, Real estate agents and many other domains where you will find similar wrongdoing. The Internet is just the part of our lives that we spend so much time these days that it's seems to be just out there.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
agilob 2y ago
>Every app has a different design, almost every design is optimized based on your activity on said app, with each app trying to make you do different things in uniquely annoying ways Two ways that instantly hit me with Google is: 1. In Google Play search is now moved to the bottom. My muscle memory still keeps trying to tap the now empty bar on the top 2. Google revoke permissions of Nextcloud app to access all files (https://github.com/nextcloud/android/pull/14099 https://github.com/nextcloud/android/pull/14099) breaking some of it's functionality. I moved to Nextcloud from F-Droid where everything is working as expected. As a revenge to Google I disabled (because I can't uninstall) all apps from Google I could replace with Fossify versions https://github.com/FossifyOrg https://github.com/FossifyOrg even apps like calculator and gallery. These are good quality apps, try them too. Free on F-droid https://search.f-droid.org/?q=fossify&lang=en https://search.f-droid.org/?q=fossify&lang=en
- Root_Denied 2y ago
  > In Google Play search is now moved to the bottom. My muscle memory still keeps trying to tap the now empty bar on the top I'd be fine with this change if they made it so that when you tap "Search" at the bottom it actually pops up the keyboard to start inputting in the search bar, which shows up at the top. Instead the Search button appears to open a new app page for searching, and then you have to tap the top search bar anyway to start inputting text. This new search page has its own trending/suggested/sponsored sections that it wants you to look at before you start searching. It's such a blatant anti-pattern to push more ads in front of you that it just pisses me off.
  - dlhextall 2y ago
    If you tap again on search, it does pop up the keyboard for input BTW.
immibis 2y ago
The first thing I see after clicking on this link is a popup begging for permission to spy on me. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
- ajkjk 2y ago
  If we're all stuck together in a glass labyrinth, maybe some stone-throwing is warranted anyway
  - immibis 2y ago
    Nobody forced Paul to beg for spying permission. It was a conscious choice, possibly because he somehow makes profit from spying.
    - ajkjk 2y ago
      That is pointlessly conspiratorial and bitter. And the author is not the sole owner of the site, anyway, and likely has little control over the site's overall aesthetic or monetization.
      - immibis 2y ago
        Don't understand what you mean. What's wrong with calling out a page about capitalism ruining the internet suffering from the same effects it's calling out?
        ajkjk 2y ago
        Because it's pointless? The validity of everything they said has nothing to do with what you were calling out. "You are being a hypocrite" is both (a) not a criticism of what they said, at all, and (b) probably false, as it's likely not even something they have any control over. Plus---what's with all the conspiratorial language? "Beg"? "Conscious choice"? "makes a profit"? "Spying"? Like... fuck off. Maybe none of that applies at all? You have no way of knowing. There's no point in seeing the complete worst in it.
Gualdrapo 2y ago
> And why does everybody need your email? Because your inbox is one of the few places that advertisers haven’t found a consistent way to penetrate. Fortunately there's still the ol' good email! I recall Robin from Teen Titans Go! at one episode saying something on the lines of "there's only one way to fight people with money: with more money!" - and it seems we haven't been able to find another way indeed. The protests and boycott on Reddit at the end did absolutely nothing to improve it or turn people to its alter atives (at most some power hungry mods were sacked, like that one from r/art who banned someone because they said their art was done by ai). The "mass" migration of people to Bluesky seem to lose its momentum already. The Cambridge Analytica scandal did nothing to make Facebook less miserable. It seems we are stuck in this worst version possible of internet and all things around it as long as there is absurd amounts of money governing it.
- immibis 2y ago
  There is one thing that came from it: since /r/piracy shut down and spez personally ensured it was reopened, he might now be personally liable for contributory copyright infringement.
hahahacorn 2y ago
Here’s a moderately more “optimistic” take. Most users just don’t care, and power users will eventually learn to use better tools. It’s the exact same rational behind airlines charging the same, but offering ludicrously valuable loyalty programs. User behavior changes based off of these outcomes, and the short-term hyper focus on metrics to the detriment of the long term usability will eventually have detrimental effects, and behavior will change, and we’ll get better alternatives. Re: Netflix. Actually, most people just want to consume slop. The popularity of reality TV proves this. Now they can consume slop with their whole family for $16/mo instead of $80/mo with cable. This is an objectively better outcome, and does not preclude studios from putting out genuinely incredible works of art. I have seen some incredible movies. A24 keeps pumping out bangers, Perfect Days and Look Back were some of my other faves from this year. But I agree with the author that the state of things isn’t “ideal”. I’m just offering a perspective that the whole world doesn’t fucking suck completely and maybe you’re being melodramatic and overly pessimistic.
- recursive 2y ago
  I don't understand the economics of cable TV, but I wouldn't say it has less "slop" than Netflix. Despite everything, the average quality on Netflix is higher than cable, while still being a fraction of the cost. I say this as someone who recently canceled Netflix because of the cost increases.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    I don't understand TV at all. There's like a handful of legitimately good, amazing stories, and the rest of it is just samey derivative nonsense. Just light and noise people apparently put on because the sounds of their lives when it's off are too depressing. I have never bought TV in my life and that decision is validated every time I turn it on in a hotel room, holy shit. I feel dumber immediately. This goes triple for the fact that Netflix now apparently designs their shows on purpose so you can follow along while looking at you're phone. Like holy fuck, just watching television is apparently too demanding an activity for some people now.
    - 2y ago
throwaway713 2y ago
Do most people really want an internet without ads, flights with large seats and plenty of space, high-quality local food — or do most people just say they want that? Because when push comes to shove and these options temporarily become available for some reason (e.g., a new farmers market, a premium streaming plan that removes ads, etc.), most people don't spring for the higher quality option. The cheapest option still seems to consistently win out overall. I'm certainly not saying "blame the consumer", but if people really don't like ads so much (to the extent that they stop clicking on them), really dislike the subpar streaming services so much (to the extent that they unsubscribe) — then why haven't they abandoned these products? There are other countries where valuing quality seems to be more deeply embedded in the culture, and most people in these countries will reject subpar offerings altogether. I think the U.S. has had a uniquely precipitous fall in this regard — the average person just doesn't seem to care that much. Why this is the case, I'm not sure, but it's not surprising that since Silicon Valley is located in the U.S., the region simply optimizes on whatever (revealed) consumer preferences return the most. Tech companies are certainly not unique in this regard.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > I'm certainly not saying "blame the consumer", but if people really don't like ads so much (to the extent that they stop clicking on them), really disliked streaming so much (to the extent that they unsubscribe) — then why haven't they? In my observation/bubble, people actually do: - I rarely click on ads (though I admit the reason is typically much more mundane: nearly all ad networks don't really "get" my interests. When they (rarely) actually do, the common situation is that I recently bought such a product, and thus clearly don't need another one when the advertising networks realize my interest and show me ads). - Many people install ad blockers. - Many people that I am aware of who are annoyed of streaming either did cancel some subscription(s) or never got one.
  - throwaway713 2y ago
    > In my observation/bubble, people already do Well I thought so too. I match those behaviors, and I don't even watch television. But then I worked at a tech company where I could see the actual data on consumer preferences and behaviors, and it's fairly undeniable: most people aren't like you, me, or the average commenter on Hacker News.
fsflover 2y ago
>Every app has a different design, almost every design is optimized based on your activity on said app, with each app trying to make you do different things in uniquely annoying ways This is exactly what is discussed in this great article: https://www.wheresyoured.at/never-forgive-them/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/never-forgive-them/ tl;dr: I find the author's reasoning very similar to the one by Cory Doctorow about enshittification, however this goes more into precice details how users suffer.
sneak 2y ago
There are plenty of apps and platforms that don’t do this. People don’t use them, and continue to donate content to Instagram and TikTok. There are hundreds of phones that still have headphone jacks and large batteries, too. Let’s not pretend that this isn’t an ongoing choice by consumers.
freetonik 2y ago
> […] your inbox is one of the few places that advertisers haven’t found a consistent way to penetrate. It would be interesting if sending an email to an address would cost money, and the owner of the address would set the price.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
RajT88 2y ago
On the one hand, films are getting worse, as the article points out. But on the other, a person with a few thousand dollars of hardware and some know-how can produce feature length films in their home and distribute them on video sharing sites. This capability is only going to get better. The next generation of Indie films may be good art like we used to get in theaters. Exploring weird ideas and themes deemed too risky for the mainstream.
khana 2y ago
[dead]
from-nibly 2y ago
Companies don't make products for customers anymore. They make sinkholes for rich peoples money. The reason everything feels like a scam is because it is. Everyone is scamming everyone else in every possible direction. The VC companies are scaming entrepreneurs by fuedalizing owning a business. The entrepreneurs are scamming their customers by creating a product that moves a metric that they then sell to a private or public equity firm. Those companies scam investors by selling stock without dividends. Those investors scam other investors ad infinitum by selling them the idea of an even bigger sucker. And the government scams people with money by saying if you don't do something with it they will take it away from you through taxes and inflation. All of this is propped up by the middle and lower class, and even lower class in nondeveloped countries.
t0bia_s 2y ago
The power of capitalism comes from our decision. It works in both ways. Either you willing to pay for service and benefit from it, or you don't pay and make company die. Complaining about how terrible private company is doesn't change anything.

74 points by toss1 2y ago

jl6 2y ago

This blog post seems to be mostly quotes from this original article: https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-49/essays/casual-viewing/ https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-49/essays/casual-viewing/

nmstoker 2y ago
Yes, as the author indicated: >> I have a lot of thoughts about both, but here I’m just going to throw out a few quotes, encourage you to read them, and suggest a couple of things.

tptacek 2y ago

It's weird to see a case like this being made on streaming services, which have produced a world-historic surplus of high-quality scripted series. People have very strange ideas about how vibrant film and television was in the era immediately preceding streaming.

piva00 2y ago
I clearly remember how much better quality the writing of HBO's series were in the late 1990s/early 2000s compared to almost anything else. Even when compared to contemporaries with great writers (e.g.: Aaron Sorkin writing "The West Wing") the quality of HBO's writing was unmatched. Nowadays that style and quality is just expected from one of the bigger drama series in any streaming service. Agree with you it's quite strange how people seem to have rose coloured glasses from that era.
- richk449 2y ago
  I’m not sure that the writing quality is the point. A better question to ask whether the creator has something they are trying to convey. It can be something artistic, or philosophical, or ethical, or none-of-the-above, but there is something there someone behind the series believes in. So much of what is on Netflix feels like a Hallmark Special with better writing and cinematography. It’s still empty calories.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Right, but that's because Netflix produces a lot of content; if you're comparing the output of Netflix to that of FX, you're doing apples/oranges. If you select out just the high-effort stuff, they're doing great.
    - richk449 2y ago
      Has recent Netflix done anything that comes close to The Wire? Or to Breaking Bad?
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Has Netflix done anything that comes close to the first and third greatest television shows of all time? No. They did Black Mirror, Stranger Things (hey: season 5 of The Wire was no great shakes either), BoJack, the Flanagan halloween miniserieses, Dark Crystal, and most recently Man on the Inside. Those are just the things I personally appreciate. They're holding their own with FX, which is not a small achievement.
        richk449 2y ago
        So what is number 2? Black mirror was a British show first. I don’t know the others except for Man on the Inside - I’m skeptical, but if it turns out to as good as The Good Place, it will be impressive for Netflix.
        tptacek 2y ago
        Saul, of course. Netflix commissioned most of Black Mirror. Man on the Inside is better than Good Place (and than any Only Murders season but the first).
  - smackeyacky 2y ago
    Maybe people like dreck. Before the internet, Mills & Boon used to sell a hell of a lot of cheap paperbacks with much the same story in them. Or Arthur Hiller books. None of it was even approaching art but it sold well and people liked it. A lot of the accusations that "Netflix is 99% dreck" is reflected in the top 10 list they handily generate for you. It simply means to me that I don't look on Netflix for something to watch, having seen the garbage getting watched on there. It says more about me than Netflix though and being judgy about other peoples taste shouldn't be mistaken for diagnosing the internets enshittification. These things are not the same.
agilob 2y ago
Check this list out: 1994 Top 50 Movies https://www.imdb.com/list/ls076329509/ https://www.imdb.com/list/ls076329509/ You can recognise every of these movies by title Here TOP 50 movies list has no title from big streaming services: https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/ https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/
- tptacek 2y ago
  Really. You've watched Ed Wood sometime within the last 10 years? The Last Seduction? Wolf? Red Rock West? That's just from the top 10 in that list. I don't know what the point of your second list is. It's never been the case that streamers or cable channels (their nearest antecedent) were big producers of movies. But streamers --- unlike cable channels --- did manage to produce CODA, Killers of the Flower Moon, The Irishman, Buster Scruggs, Roma, Dolemite, and Glass Onion.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    This is just some guy's top 50 favorite movies. And if you'd gone just one year further, to 1995, you'd have gotten Heat, Braveheart, Casino, 12 Monkeys, The Usual Suspects, and Toy Story. The Basketball Diaries doesn't hold up, at all, but Apollo 13 was great. (I will stick up for Heat, but my god, the shoulder pads).
- Root_Denied 2y ago
  Top Rated movies aren't 1:1 with how much money the movie made. The incentives here are for these companies to make money, either through box office numbers or by increasing (and retaining) subscribers. They don't need to make a top 50 of all time movie to make a profit, and usually they're not trying to anyway.
pessimizer 2y ago
> streaming services, which have produced a world-historic surplus of high-quality scripted series. No, they're almost all terrible and as far as I can tell most people can't find anything new to watch, or if they're lucky they can find one or two things to almost get into. The trick is that there's no way to find out how many people are watching things any more, and that keeping your subscription going is binary. You can accumulate a huge amount of personal dissatisfaction before actually cancelling. The main thing I'm hearing about these grossly padded, awful series, is that after people get interested by the pilot, they increasingly start fast forwarding through more and more of the episodes until they're consuming them so quickly they might as well be watching a digest of the "previously on...", until they get so disgusted by the repeated slights to their intelligence that even this they can't even stomach. Giving up a subscription also means giving up the archive of the "vibrant film and television" from "the era immediately preceding streaming," that even though they may have seen it before, is pleasant to leave playing in the background. Production values are very high. Dialog is sometimes very good. Series are high-concept, but empty, endless and awful, and I even feel sorry for the writers that have to keep generating scenes with one character walking up to another character who is busy working on something and says: "how are you holding up?" There are going to be five of those in this episode, and maybe one thing that advances the plot. Apple TV has all the money in the world, and just generates clumsy high-priced disasters. I have no idea how bad the corporate culture can be in these places to actively repel any story that is any good. I think the problem is that they're not making enough cheapo series where talent could accidentally sneak in because no one was paying attention.
- tptacek 2y ago
  I'll put a list of the top series of 2023 up against 2005 cheerfully.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

I highly highly recommend the late Mark Fischer's Capitalist Realism. There's no good reason why the internet needs to be this bad.... aside from an irrational demand for continual returns, damn the cost to humanity. There are, in fact, better ways to run society than begging the rich to care about the rest of us. Anyone who says alternatives to capitalism are unrealistic are lying to your face.

smitty1e 2y ago
I fully agree that Socialism is a simpler and more beautiful approach. What I haven't seen is Socialism scaling in any sustainable way above, roughly, Dunbar's Number[1]. I submit, looking at human history, that the non-scalabity is intrinsic, and that capitalism is relatively less-worse approach. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
- immibis 2y ago
  The word "socialism" really means "everything that isn't capitalism, and has a more equitable distribution of resources". Making socialism work just means making something other than capitalism work, and there are lots of ideas out there.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    Ideas which will thankfully remain suppressed due to their socialist association. We know what happened when a socialist party with new ideas took over Germany in the early 30s, and have collectively decided the new ideas can take a hike.
    - thrance 2y ago
      Look up Hitler's views on socialism before speaking such nonsense here. The socialists and communists were the first to go under nazi leadership.

suryajena 2y ago

It's true and horrifying at the same time. I find similar disregard to customers in other traditional innovations as well like credit cards and their rewards, not at all beneficial to the average user, similarly insurance products that keep finding ways to increase your premium with add-ons and riders in every unimaginably creative ways that doesn't serve the customer any value just confuses people and prompts them to hire advisors and pay them. Take the microwave ovens and refrigerators with full on PCs with WiFi inside them serving nothing useful just more mild convenience I suppose and more price. And take Software like windows, that keeps pushing higher hardware requirements forcing users to upgrade hardware and its just everywhere in our lives not just the internet now. Take tax filing portals, Real estate agents and many other domains where you will find similar wrongdoing. The Internet is just the part of our lives that we spend so much time these days that it's seems to be just out there.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

agilob 2y ago

>Every app has a different design, almost every design is optimized based on your activity on said app, with each app trying to make you do different things in uniquely annoying ways Two ways that instantly hit me with Google is: 1. In Google Play search is now moved to the bottom. My muscle memory still keeps trying to tap the now empty bar on the top 2. Google revoke permissions of Nextcloud app to access all files (https://github.com/nextcloud/android/pull/14099 https://github.com/nextcloud/android/pull/14099) breaking some of it's functionality. I moved to Nextcloud from F-Droid where everything is working as expected. As a revenge to Google I disabled (because I can't uninstall) all apps from Google I could replace with Fossify versions https://github.com/FossifyOrg https://github.com/FossifyOrg even apps like calculator and gallery. These are good quality apps, try them too. Free on F-droid https://search.f-droid.org/?q=fossify&lang=en https://search.f-droid.org/?q=fossify&lang=en

Root_Denied 2y ago
> In Google Play search is now moved to the bottom. My muscle memory still keeps trying to tap the now empty bar on the top I'd be fine with this change if they made it so that when you tap "Search" at the bottom it actually pops up the keyboard to start inputting in the search bar, which shows up at the top. Instead the Search button appears to open a new app page for searching, and then you have to tap the top search bar anyway to start inputting text. This new search page has its own trending/suggested/sponsored sections that it wants you to look at before you start searching. It's such a blatant anti-pattern to push more ads in front of you that it just pisses me off.
- dlhextall 2y ago
  If you tap again on search, it does pop up the keyboard for input BTW.

immibis 2y ago

The first thing I see after clicking on this link is a popup begging for permission to spy on me. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

ajkjk 2y ago
If we're all stuck together in a glass labyrinth, maybe some stone-throwing is warranted anyway
- immibis 2y ago
  Nobody forced Paul to beg for spying permission. It was a conscious choice, possibly because he somehow makes profit from spying.
  - ajkjk 2y ago
    That is pointlessly conspiratorial and bitter. And the author is not the sole owner of the site, anyway, and likely has little control over the site's overall aesthetic or monetization.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Don't understand what you mean. What's wrong with calling out a page about capitalism ruining the internet suffering from the same effects it's calling out?
      - ajkjk 2y ago
        Because it's pointless? The validity of everything they said has nothing to do with what you were calling out. "You are being a hypocrite" is both (a) not a criticism of what they said, at all, and (b) probably false, as it's likely not even something they have any control over. Plus---what's with all the conspiratorial language? "Beg"? "Conscious choice"? "makes a profit"? "Spying"? Like... fuck off. Maybe none of that applies at all? You have no way of knowing. There's no point in seeing the complete worst in it.

Gualdrapo 2y ago

> And why does everybody need your email? Because your inbox is one of the few places that advertisers haven’t found a consistent way to penetrate. Fortunately there's still the ol' good email! I recall Robin from Teen Titans Go! at one episode saying something on the lines of "there's only one way to fight people with money: with more money!" - and it seems we haven't been able to find another way indeed. The protests and boycott on Reddit at the end did absolutely nothing to improve it or turn people to its alter atives (at most some power hungry mods were sacked, like that one from r/art who banned someone because they said their art was done by ai). The "mass" migration of people to Bluesky seem to lose its momentum already. The Cambridge Analytica scandal did nothing to make Facebook less miserable. It seems we are stuck in this worst version possible of internet and all things around it as long as there is absurd amounts of money governing it.

immibis 2y ago
There is one thing that came from it: since /r/piracy shut down and spez personally ensured it was reopened, he might now be personally liable for contributory copyright infringement.

hahahacorn 2y ago

Here’s a moderately more “optimistic” take. Most users just don’t care, and power users will eventually learn to use better tools. It’s the exact same rational behind airlines charging the same, but offering ludicrously valuable loyalty programs. User behavior changes based off of these outcomes, and the short-term hyper focus on metrics to the detriment of the long term usability will eventually have detrimental effects, and behavior will change, and we’ll get better alternatives. Re: Netflix. Actually, most people just want to consume slop. The popularity of reality TV proves this. Now they can consume slop with their whole family for $16/mo instead of $80/mo with cable. This is an objectively better outcome, and does not preclude studios from putting out genuinely incredible works of art. I have seen some incredible movies. A24 keeps pumping out bangers, Perfect Days and Look Back were some of my other faves from this year. But I agree with the author that the state of things isn’t “ideal”. I’m just offering a perspective that the whole world doesn’t fucking suck completely and maybe you’re being melodramatic and overly pessimistic.

recursive 2y ago
I don't understand the economics of cable TV, but I wouldn't say it has less "slop" than Netflix. Despite everything, the average quality on Netflix is higher than cable, while still being a fraction of the cost. I say this as someone who recently canceled Netflix because of the cost increases.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  I don't understand TV at all. There's like a handful of legitimately good, amazing stories, and the rest of it is just samey derivative nonsense. Just light and noise people apparently put on because the sounds of their lives when it's off are too depressing. I have never bought TV in my life and that decision is validated every time I turn it on in a hotel room, holy shit. I feel dumber immediately. This goes triple for the fact that Netflix now apparently designs their shows on purpose so you can follow along while looking at you're phone. Like holy fuck, just watching television is apparently too demanding an activity for some people now.
  - 2y ago

throwaway713 2y ago

Do most people really want an internet without ads, flights with large seats and plenty of space, high-quality local food — or do most people just say they want that? Because when push comes to shove and these options temporarily become available for some reason (e.g., a new farmers market, a premium streaming plan that removes ads, etc.), most people don't spring for the higher quality option. The cheapest option still seems to consistently win out overall. I'm certainly not saying "blame the consumer", but if people really don't like ads so much (to the extent that they stop clicking on them), really dislike the subpar streaming services so much (to the extent that they unsubscribe) — then why haven't they abandoned these products? There are other countries where valuing quality seems to be more deeply embedded in the culture, and most people in these countries will reject subpar offerings altogether. I think the U.S. has had a uniquely precipitous fall in this regard — the average person just doesn't seem to care that much. Why this is the case, I'm not sure, but it's not surprising that since Silicon Valley is located in the U.S., the region simply optimizes on whatever (revealed) consumer preferences return the most. Tech companies are certainly not unique in this regard.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> I'm certainly not saying "blame the consumer", but if people really don't like ads so much (to the extent that they stop clicking on them), really disliked streaming so much (to the extent that they unsubscribe) — then why haven't they? In my observation/bubble, people actually do: - I rarely click on ads (though I admit the reason is typically much more mundane: nearly all ad networks don't really "get" my interests. When they (rarely) actually do, the common situation is that I recently bought such a product, and thus clearly don't need another one when the advertising networks realize my interest and show me ads). - Many people install ad blockers. - Many people that I am aware of who are annoyed of streaming either did cancel some subscription(s) or never got one.
- throwaway713 2y ago
  > In my observation/bubble, people already do Well I thought so too. I match those behaviors, and I don't even watch television. But then I worked at a tech company where I could see the actual data on consumer preferences and behaviors, and it's fairly undeniable: most people aren't like you, me, or the average commenter on Hacker News.

fsflover 2y ago

>Every app has a different design, almost every design is optimized based on your activity on said app, with each app trying to make you do different things in uniquely annoying ways This is exactly what is discussed in this great article: https://www.wheresyoured.at/never-forgive-them/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/never-forgive-them/ tl;dr: I find the author's reasoning very similar to the one by Cory Doctorow about enshittification, however this goes more into precice details how users suffer.

sneak 2y ago

There are plenty of apps and platforms that don’t do this. People don’t use them, and continue to donate content to Instagram and TikTok. There are hundreds of phones that still have headphone jacks and large batteries, too. Let’s not pretend that this isn’t an ongoing choice by consumers.

freetonik 2y ago

> […] your inbox is one of the few places that advertisers haven’t found a consistent way to penetrate. It would be interesting if sending an email to an address would cost money, and the owner of the address would set the price.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

RajT88 2y ago

On the one hand, films are getting worse, as the article points out. But on the other, a person with a few thousand dollars of hardware and some know-how can produce feature length films in their home and distribute them on video sharing sites. This capability is only going to get better. The next generation of Indie films may be good art like we used to get in theaters. Exploring weird ideas and themes deemed too risky for the mainstream.

khana 2y ago

[dead]

from-nibly 2y ago

Companies don't make products for customers anymore. They make sinkholes for rich peoples money. The reason everything feels like a scam is because it is. Everyone is scamming everyone else in every possible direction. The VC companies are scaming entrepreneurs by fuedalizing owning a business. The entrepreneurs are scamming their customers by creating a product that moves a metric that they then sell to a private or public equity firm. Those companies scam investors by selling stock without dividends. Those investors scam other investors ad infinitum by selling them the idea of an even bigger sucker. And the government scams people with money by saying if you don't do something with it they will take it away from you through taxes and inflation. All of this is propped up by the middle and lower class, and even lower class in nondeveloped countries.

t0bia_s 2y ago

The power of capitalism comes from our decision. It works in both ways. Either you willing to pay for service and benefit from it, or you don't pay and make company die. Complaining about how terrible private company is doesn't change anything.