the corporate-owned part, hopefully. and I think we’re actually witnessing the renaissance of the small, users controlled one.
deleted by creator
Habsburg AI? My sides went into orbit. I didn’t know that I needed to know this expression!
I don’t fully agree with the author but that was an enjoyable read. The initial chunk about Reddit is mostly there to provide context for the general trends and directions that the internet is following; the “core” is the impact of generative models into the internet.
Unlike the author, I don’t think that the internet is dying, but instead entering a new phase that resembles in some aspects the old internet: search has become unreliable and those mega-platforms enshittify themselves to death, so people shift to smaller (often non-commercial) platforms and find new content to follow by the hyperlinks provided by other people. It’s a lot like the internet before Google Search.
If that’s correct, the impact of those generative models was only to speed up the process, not to cause it. At the end of the day the main concern is that it works a lot like spam - as undesired content avoiding being detected as such, and tweaked to steal your attention from the content that you actually want to consume. And spam is not something new for us (or the internet), what’s new is GAFAM and their vassals (Twitter, Reddit etc.) eating it for lunch.
The internet, no. The world wide web, yes.
The current internet search is becoming obsolete. People are able to tell apart BS, though. This means, there’s a possibility for a smarter filter. Hard to tell whether we will see one in the near-future.
People are able to tell apart BS, though.
Please help me be optimistic. Why do you think this is the case? No matter where I go I see mostly confirmation bias and the lack of even the most basic level of critical thought.
you’re right. I should’ve written some people
Betteridge’s law of headlines answers this succintly: no
The headline is 6 words. The article is 3,606 words. Expressed as a percentage, the amount of content you have decided to address comes to a grand total of 0.16%.
If you have no interest in interacting with the content, it would be simple enough to state that. But to dismiss the entirety of the article based on 0.16% of the content seems rather short sighted to me. Do you have any thoughts to share about the article?
Nah, I’m allergic to clickbait. If it had a better, more serious title, I’d read it.
If you’re the author of the article, you have to find that line between interesting and clickbait. Sensationalist titles like that are like smearing a distasteful substance on the cover of a book. No matter what you write in that book, I’m not picking it up.
Possible titles (without even reading the article) that would make me click with an open mind
- Threats to the open web
- How much has the web changed since $date?
- Where does the web go after $event?
- The future of the web - an opinion
- How do monopolies affect the internet?
That’s more like it, this is a discussion that people can actually interact with! I am not the author, and I agree with you that the title isn’t great, but I am interested in discussing what they wrote and appreciate that you’ve now at least opened the door to a discussion on clickbait titles rather than just leaving a one sentence “gotcha”.
Dude. The 4th sentence of the page you linked says it doesn’t apply to this type of open ended question.
The only possible answer to this (admittedly silly) headline is, “it depends what you mean by die”. An answer yes or no could easily be rebutted.
This isn’t a new thing. It’s been a long time ago that the internet shifted from being a level playing field and a means of connecting people, to a place where the big companies make money. And it brought some of the currently biggest companies on earth into existence.
Things changed a bit. Harvesting private data and selling information about the users used to be the dominating business model. It still is, but now it gets mixed with selling their content to train AI. I’d argue that in itself isn’t a dramatic change. It’s still the same concept.
But I also always worry about centralization, enshittification and algorithms shaping our perspective on reality more and more.
Recent big sites that closed down: Jezebel, Pitchfork, Vice, Popular Science, and my hopes for the Messenger were dashed when they announced their demise: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4440773-news-startup-the-messenger-shutting-down/
LA Times and the like are hit with layoffs and – worse – Sinclair heavyweight added the Balitmore Sun to the list of ‘compromised’ media outlets: https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/01/15/baltimore-sun-sold-david-smith-sinclair/
That said, there are always new sites, but gaining trust and reputation takes time.
Social sites seem doomed to crest and then fall. Digg? MySpace? Friendster? Who remembers the good old days of (moderated) UseNet? Do we want any of those back? Would any of them have remained were it not for spam/bad-actors?
Corporate social media may be dying, but that’s only one small part of the Internet.
Liked the article but the end was kind of a letdown for me. If capitalism-driven AI is ruining the web even further why would demanding that AI is better today already and not in the future help with any of the problems this article has described?
For me the solution is obvioisly rejecting corpo-spam social-networks and going back to the selfmade small-internet, the fediverse etc. Sure that’s not a solution for humanity as a whole but neither is demanding better AI now.
Are have I completely misunderstood something?
Personally I read it as a general “demand better”, “don’t accept crap wrapped in gold” as an offensive principle against (de)generative AI. Perhaps I’m inserting my own positive spin on their words, but it seems to me that their point is “don’t let the hype win”; if these companies are pushing AI, forming dependencies on bad tech, then we need to say “not good enough” and push back on the BS. Deny the ability of low quality garbage to ‘fulfil’ our needs. It’s not a directly practical line to be sure (how do we do this exactly?), but it does drill down past “AI is bad” to a more fundamental (and arguably motivating) point - that we, all of us, deserve better than to drown in a sea of crap and that’s still important.
Ok, yeah, but I still think that totally misses the point. At least for me even fully functional AI will still be a desaster and would be used for the most heinous stuff, eroding democracy worldwide even more and it obviously changes nothing of the social-media-silo capitalist hellscape most people live in comfortably (or less comfortably if it gives you eating disorders, depression and stuff).
I can’t disagree with you on that, you’re absolutely right - I suppose my read just gives the author the benefit of the doubt that it’s not ‘better AI’ that we deserve, but a better internet (i.e. with no AI whatsoever).
-
insightful question,
-
it isnt just the internet, in case you hadn’t noticed, it is ALL civil-rights that are being gutted, in the enshittocene.
“once the infection has moved the ‘fulcrum’, the balance between the involuntary-host & the infection, far enough, it can then switch from symbiosis to totalitarian rampaging growth-at-any-cost, excluding-all-vital-functions, enforcing its parasitic & fatal consumption, killing the patient”
A tipping-point is being crossed, though it’s taking a few decades ( planets are slower than individual-animals, in experiencing infection ).
It’s our rendition of The Great Filter, in-which we enforce that we can’t be viable, because factional-ideology “needs” that we break all viability from the world.
Or, to be plainer, it is our race’s unconscious toddler setting-up a world-breaking tantrum, to “BREAK GOD AND MAKE GOD OBEY” its won’t-grow-up.
Read Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast & Slow”, & see how the imprint->reaction mind, Kahneman1 ( he calls it “System 1”, but without context, that’s meaningless ) substitutes easy-to-answer questions for the actual questions…
The more you read that book, the most important psychology book in the whole world, right now, the more obvious it is that Ideology/prejudice/assumption-river/religion/dogma is doing all it can to break considered-reasoning ( Kahneman2 ) from the whole world, and it is succeeding/winning.
“Proletariat dictatorship” the Leninists want, “populist dictatorship” the fascists want, religious totalitarianism, political totalitarianism, ideological totalitarianism, etc, it’s all Kahneman1 fighting to break considered-reasoning from the whole world, and the “disappearing” of all comments criticizing Threads from the Threads portion of the internet … is perfectly normal.
It’s simply highjacking of our entire civilization, by the systems which want exclusive dominion.
Have you checked your youtube account’s settings section, in the history section, to see what percentage of your comments have been disappeared??
Do it.
Everybody do it.
Discover how huge a percentage of your contribution to the “community” got disappeared, because it wasn’t what their algorithm finds usefully-sensationalistic, or usefully-pushing-whatever-they-find-acceptable.
I spent a few hours deleting ALL my comments from there, after seeing that around 1/2 of what I’d contributed had been disappeared.
There are a few comments now, but … they’ll be removed, either by yt or by me, soon.
No point in pretending that meaning is tolerable, anymore, you know?
Only fakery & hustle remains, for most of the internet, & that transformation’s going to be complete, in a few years.
1984, but for-profit.
Sorry for the … dim … view, but it’s been unfolding for a couple decades, & it’s getting blatent, fast.
-
