619
The internet is worse than it used to be. How did we get here, and can we go back?
(theconversation.com)
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
To a large degree, the same internet that used to be, still is.
Keep in mind that in the era they are nostalgic for, the internet involved roughly 4% of the world's population. As big in the public conciousness was, it was a relatively small thing.
For example, most people see Lemmy as pretty small and much slower content coming at you than reddit. However Lemmy is still way bigger than what a mid 90s experience with the internet would be. I can still connect to play BBS Door games and there's barely anyone there, but there were barely any people there back then either. The "old" internet is still there, it's just small compared to the vast majority of the internet that came about later.
Some things are gone, but replaced. For example Geocities now has neocities, which is niche by today's standards, but wouldn't be shocked if neocities technically is bigger than geocities ever was in absolute terms.
Some things are gone and won't come back. The late 2000s saw a really nice and stable all-you-can-watch streaming experience from Netflix, and their success brought about maddening licensing deals where material randomly appears, moves, and disappears and where a lot of material demands more to "rent" than buying an actual Blu Ray disc of it would cost (have gone back to buying discs as of late because it's cheaper than streaming).
True. Heck, even ol' Slashdot is still kicking around and I think it was the first website discussion board I'd encountered (or maybe that was Fark? which is also kicking around still!)
Yeah, and the ol' "slashdot effect" is hardly a concern anymore because things have gotten so much more capable as slashdot didn't grow.
I'm sitting at a laptop with 8-way 2.3 ghz, 32GB of RAM, a way faster NVME storage than any datacenter array would deliver in that era with a gigabit internet connection from my house. Way outclassing any hosting demands from the 90s for the most severe "slashdotting" that slashdot ever could inflict back then.
To deal with 'modern internet scale', you have to resort to more resources, but to keep up with the 'like 90s subset', little old rasberry pis can even keep pace.
The Fediverse effect is much more entertaining. When every instance trys to retrieve a thumbnail and description of a link at the same time. Nobody even has to interact with said post to just give the place a DDOS flood.
I've actually been visiting Fark a few times a week ever since the Reddit boycott last year! I didn't realize how much I had missed it.
Well, actually:
When Online Content Disappears
"38% of webpages that existed in 2013 are no longer accessible a decade later"
I would say internet "in kind", not necesarily verbatim the content from back then. I think if someone inventoried the subset of the internet that was "like the good old days" more or less that it would probably match in scale 1997 internet or so, or be larger. Styles may change and content, but the general spirit and approaches persist, just as a now minority in a much bigger sea of crap that came to join it.
IRC was a ghost town the last time I checked in on it. In the mid-90s there were constantly thousands of people on it.
A bit more of a direct comparison would be IRC to, say, Matrix. Last year I see an article announcing Matrix user count and it was more than all the internet users combined in 1997. This is a near-nothing number in modern internet scale, not even 4% of Facebook userbase, but I'd say that Matrix is about as close as I can conceive of "IRC-like" mindset applied with more modern principles in play. Yes you have billions in more popular social networking and communication networks, but there remains many millions of people's worth of "internet" that resembles the 90s in some structural ways, which is how many people we had on the internet total in the 90s.
One huge difference is of course that no longer does a wider populace see those folks as potential pathfinders for others to join, but their own little weird niche not playing the same way as everyone else, with no advantage that they can understand in play.
Yes, I understand your point and agree with you for the most part.
I feel like there was a turning point in the Internet though, where the federation of user identities basically ended for most Internet users. I track it to the advent of MySpace and Facebook. People started using their actual identities on these sites (most likely, at first, to attempt to get laid), and our privacy began being flushed down the toilet then. I also think the creation of Google Chrome with Google's all-consuming want for private data and to tie all of your Internet activity to a real person had a big hand in this as well. The modern Internet is a surveillance Internet.
As the article states, it's no longer true that "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog". They hook you to your actual physical identity the instant you do anything on your phone, search using a logged in account, browse one of their sites with your logged in cookie, or generally browse anything after you've touched any of the major social media sites because they added trackers to everything.
In some ways, this is beneficial because many cannot handle anonymity, but the bad parts of the Internet have largely drowned out the good. As the Internet has scaled, more and more of the bad side of humanity is reflected digitally. To add to that mix, the major sites in their fun house mirror algorithms supposedly designed to amplify engagement (or "enragement algorithms" as I sometimes say) constantly amplify items posted by the most degenerate among us.