Technology
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
I've been watching the Internet die since I was 10 years old. Fucker's really draggin' it out, being all dramatic n shit.
I always find responses like this funny. You know how old you are, but (mostly) nobody reading the comment does. You could be anywhere from 11 to 50!
I was going to joke "wow, a whole 4 years?"
capitalism too, I've been hearing that we're in the "late stage" for a long time now
~~Uhm ackshully the "late stage" in capitalism is in late stage in the same way a Cancer is late-stage. So it doesn't mean Capitalism dying, it means Capitalism killing its host (humanity)~~
the corporate-owned part, hopefully. and I think we're actually witnessing the renaissance of the small, users controlled one.
Lemmies unite!
Die? No there's no way to put that genie back in the bottle. It might just be a little different going forward.
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 author does have a way with words lol. I love this paragraph in particular, emphasis mine:
As we speak, the battle that platforms are fighting is against generative spam, a cartoonish and obvious threat of outright nonsense, meaningless chum that can and should (and likely will) be stopped. In the process, they're failing to see that this isn't a war against spam, but a war against crap, and the overall normalization and intellectual numbing that comes when content is created to please algorithms and provide a minimum viable product for consumers. Google's "useless" results problem isn't one borne of content that has no meaning, but of content that only sort of helps, that is the "right" result but doesn't actually provide any real thought behind it, like the endless "how to fix error code X" results full of well-meaning and plausibly helpful content that doesn't really help at all.
And he describes exactly what I have to deal with on the regular, "content that only sort of helps" that "steals your attention from the content you actually want." Even moving from Google to DDG has only mitigated this problem, it hasn't fully gone away.
But yeah, one of his conclusions seems to be the Death of the Hyperlink? Which, I mean, not even LLM's can kill that. I doubt <a href is going away any time soon.
And he describes exactly what I have to deal with on the regular, "content that only sort of helps"
Hello, my name's dgriffith. I'm a Fediverse Support community member, and I'm here to help.
Have you tried running sfc /scannow and making sure your antivirus is up to date? That usually fixes the issue that you are describing.
If that does not help, a complete system reinstall often solves the problem you have.
Please mark this comment as useful if it helps you.
Regarding the death of hyperlinks, it's probably more a case of "why bother clicking on yet another link that leads me to another page of crap?".
That is, it used to be the case that you'd put information on the web that was useful and people would link to it, now 80 percent of it seems to be variations of my "helpful" text above, SEO'd recipe sites, or just AI hallucinations of stuff scraped from other sites.
The internet, no. The world wide web, yes.
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?
I would not have clicked if it had any of those titles. And I do actually agree with the title. We are watching the death of the internet. It will never be again what it was. And what it is now is a clean white washed drip fed version of the expansive and deep knowledge of everything that it once was.
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.
Will we ever stop referring to the Web as "the Internet"?
To be fair, the definition is a bit muddier nowadays. Is Lemmy on the Web? I don't use it via the website. Bulletin boards used to not be part of the Web, as they pre-date the Web. But nowadays everything is HTTP. There's so little non-web left, and the vast majority of users never use it, that the Internet is only used for accessing the Web.
BitTorrent is a pretty big part of the Internet though.
No.
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
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?