hey doodz thinking we could muse abt the state of technology/design/business of the net in here - feel like theres some good ilx conversion on the topic but its sort of scattered and intermittent - itd be cool if people went full nerd and dropped some knowledge in here regardless of its esotericism
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 15:16 (nine years ago) link
― scott seward, Sunday, 20 February 2011 15:20 (nine years ago) link
despite not having any background in IT, that's what half of my job revolves around. We've been working on pilots all year to test out "Linked Data" (AKA Linked Open Data or LOD, and heavily overlapping with the Semantic Web) concepts that Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, has been pushing for the last several years.
Linked Open Data is actually pretty exciting because it's a way of structuring data so that it can be automatically detected by other machines - could be a huge boon to researchers. could also help Watson REALLY kick ass on Jeopardy! next time. However, unfortunately I'm not yet educated enough to go full nerd on the concept. :-/
― OH YEAAAAH! (Z S), Sunday, 20 February 2011 15:23 (nine years ago) link
ie, a human would never be able to keep all of the connections between these datasets in mind, but properly structured linked open data could:
― OH YEAAAAH! (Z S), Sunday, 20 February 2011 15:27 (nine years ago) link
anyway i was gonna this comment on one of the gawker threads but ima put it here - thinking abt how the gawker redesign is trying to port some of the functionality/ui of native mobile apps back to the web and its not really working out mostly because its hard to get the feel right - i imagine its because of the variety of platforms/browsers/machines people access the web on is so vast
this is obvs part of a larger trend - theres chrome apps for nytimes and huffpost that are v similar and have the same jankey feel problem - the only site that seems to have done it right yet is twitter - and they kept it super simple by just implementing the pop out side pannel - on native apps particularly like iphone where youre developing for four devices total its much easier to control the feel
its interesting cause theres all this powerful technology that makes these sites possible but then youre left w/this subjective very hard to control in the fractured web environment make or break proposition which ends up being just sort of vibe based - like do people feel they can groove w/yr site
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 15:30 (nine years ago) link
btw lmao scott
zs this more or less talking abt the semantic web that people think is the next big leap right
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 15:31 (nine years ago) link
ever since 2001, yep
i swear it's ALMOST here this time, promise!
― OH YEAAAAH! (Z S), Sunday, 20 February 2011 15:33 (nine years ago) link
btw infos on the image of obama nerd dinner http://www.businessinsider.com/people-at-obamas-tech-dinner-2011-2 p amazing collection of people
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 15:33 (nine years ago) link
all of the semantic stuff is pretty much brand new to me, but yeah, whenever we talk about it with people at work there's always an old grizzled IT pro who is basically like "people have been talking this up for a decade, and nothing ever gets done."
― OH YEAAAAH! (Z S), Sunday, 20 February 2011 15:34 (nine years ago) link
ha yeah i think one of the main things thats made the web so successful is that its really easy to make web pages and theres a lot of different ways to do it - that flexibility has made barriers to entry low and a lot of creativity possible but its also made the whole thing a big delightful mess - people have tried to organize it but even like xhtml got the gassface because it was too uptight
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 15:40 (nine years ago) link
if the future of the internet involves "ECM solutions that don't arbitrarily try to jam everything in a bunch of nested tables" i for one support our new etc
― Lt. Van Ice Cage (govern yourself accordingly), Sunday, 20 February 2011 15:52 (nine years ago) link
anyway, that's going to be about the extent that i can "contribute" to this thread because i barely even know about the present state of the internet, let alone the future, but pretty excited to see what others have to say!
― OH YEAAAAH! (Z S), Sunday, 20 February 2011 16:00 (nine years ago) link
well im personal v interested in what u have to say re being involved in this semantic web project in proximity to the god tim berners lee - come back and tell us more - i think youll find by attempting to explain what youre all up to youll understand better and in no time at all youll be in charge of the entire internet!
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:07 (nine years ago) link
thinking more abt the gawker/twitter redesigns and the urge to port native app qualities to the web while making and eating pancakes that the subject connects nicely to a popular shift in design/development practices which is the preference for frequent minor iterations over big redesigns - an example would be the way facebook goes abt tweaking things here and there constantly - the benefits are obvious from the pov of easing users into changes and testing discrete aspects of what youre trying to do - there are some draw backs from the pov of lock in/status quo bias/ability to be bold
but i think an underrated aspect of this approach is it helps you think abt what youre doing - really contemplate each lil piece and how it fits into yr strategy/philosophy - it can bring you back down to earth and open up compelling new lines of thought
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:16 (nine years ago) link
gawker is maybe not the best example to continue using in this convo as they have a whole nother related problem in that their new shit is just quite broken - although obvs that couldve been avoided w/a more agile approach
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:19 (nine years ago) link
its interesting too that they got in early in this trend but theyre not a technology company so maybe they dont really have the chops to pull it off
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:20 (nine years ago) link
was thinking the first big departure from the feel/functionality of the traditional slide show style one full page after another web site model to a more flowing/asynchronous environment is the infinite scrolling on the facebook/etc news feed - everyone is p confortable w/it at this point - that i imagine will be the thing that first filters down to more traditional sites
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:25 (nine years ago) link
im trying not to comment on the redesign but this is a kind of interesting thing:
i.e. what the redesign could be like if it isnt/wasnt so buggy
― max, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:25 (nine years ago) link
also thats a much nicer, cleaner design--hate the faux-3d shit on the real site
― max, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:26 (nine years ago) link
but note for example how much it changes the feel of the page when scrolling actually works
― max, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:27 (nine years ago) link
would LOVE if that became more common, but isn't the whole point of the tedious slide show format to drive up page views/ad revenue?
― OH YEAAAAH! (Z S), Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:28 (nine years ago) link
yeah but that kind of stats-juking is getting less popular as advertisers catch on.
― max, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:29 (nine years ago) link
the web has been getting more appified as the years go by, and I imagine it'll continue.
I expect that the whole idea of "addresses" will become a retro signifier at some point, like modem sounds are now
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:38 (nine years ago) link
i hate that rss feeds are so passe now
i love my google reader
― HOOS the master?? STEEN NUFF (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:45 (nine years ago) link
The slideshow thing is an inheritance of Duke Berners Lee. The web was designed to share scientific papers, and so this whole thing about URLs being direct links to pieces of content, sry "representations" became the holy grail for semantic types who wanted the web to be for computers rly (see also: REST).
I think that combines with the whole request/response thing that means content on the web is totally about "ask for a page of things", "get a page of things", "choose another page" and it becomes the dominant metaphor. Now every damn news site is basically the same.
Then apps came along and were totally different -- much more about continuous async flows of stuff instead of ask/wait/ask/wait. This affected how they presented content, and I think it made it easier for people to navigate (certainly the content sites I know of see massively more "pages" per visit on iPhone than they do on their sites or mobile web).
Gawker saw that and wanted in. They fucked it up, but I think that's where we're going. It's being screamed that Gawker is "breaking the web" but not honouring 1 URL = 1 representation, but sites like Twitter and Facebook are already doing the same thing -- there's no useful URL to describe the tangled state "representation" you can get into following a reply chain or drilling into a friend-relationship.
― stet, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:46 (nine years ago) link
This post reads like a load of wank to me, and content-centric networking sounds like OpenDoc in its "makes sense for a bit then doesn't" plausibility, but maybe there's something in it. http://al3x.net/2011/02/15/internet-future.html
― stet, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:48 (nine years ago) link
― max, Sunday, February 20, 2011 12:26 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
omg yes h8 fakeo 3d dropshadow bullshit on so many sites - its like respect things for what they are, use design to elucidate not obscure
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:52 (nine years ago) link
thats all apples fault i think, thanks for the brushed metal look "jon ive" you dick
― max, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:53 (nine years ago) link
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Sunday, February 20, 2011 12:38 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
It's being screamed that Gawker is "breaking the web" but not honouring 1 URL = 1 representation, but sites like Twitter and Facebook are already doing the same thing -- there's no useful URL to describe the tangled state "representation" you can get into following a reply chain or drilling into a friend-relationship.
― stet, Sunday, February 20, 2011 12:46 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
yeah i think this is a super important thing thatll have to be sorted as the foundation of the web is you know links - as of now im firmly in the everything should have a url including states of web apps or w/e camp - although obvs its p easy to see the problems/impossibilities that come w/this position
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 17:56 (nine years ago) link
All the alternatives I can think of just will never fly commercially, but eg it would be way more useful for a URL to link directly to an actual bit of content, whether that's a text article, movie, mp3 or status update than it would for it to link to a mountain of HTML/JS/CSS/Flash/w/e.
Breaking those two apart would be killer.
― stet, Sunday, 20 February 2011 18:05 (nine years ago) link
Which is sort of what APIs do, I guess, but they're all different and bespoke, and I really don't see REST/autodiscovery fixing that.
The web was designed to share scientific papers, and so this whole thing about URLs being direct links to pieces of content, sry "representations" became the holy grail for semantic types who wanted the web to be for computers rly (see also: REST).
― stet, Sunday, February 20, 2011 12:46 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
haha i was in boston a month or so ago talking to my friends neighbor who is this old school computer legend, the guy who more or less invented the spreadsheet iirc, and now hes trying to be a internet thought leader - hes super smart but not the best communicator in that dismissive nerd way - we got to talking abt the value of design - i was arguing that its essential as far as getting yr point across to people - eventually he got sort of frustrated and blurted out i dont want to talk to people, i want to talk to computers!
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 18:09 (nine years ago) link
oh I think URLs will always exist, but they won't constitute this visible way of interfacing with the internet. people used to have to tune in their TVs.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 20 February 2011 18:23 (nine years ago) link
so the question of who provides the abstraction layer, and how it works, becomes very important. how do you find the "channels" or "apps" (which will each have different models of how much and what kind of interaction to have with "external" "content"). something like YouView comes to mind. the US, as usual, is caught in never-ending wars of attrition between private concerns (comcast, netflix, apple, etc) and may find itself way behind, as it was with mobile phone technology for a decade
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 20 February 2011 18:28 (nine years ago) link
this is pretty otm, but i think governance of the underlying technology behind all this is so decentralized that it's going to continue to be a content issue for the foreseeable future, viz. youview, spotify for instance - it's not as if the issue with mobile phone technology 10 years ago was that americans couldn't play snake ii (imperfect analogy, but you know what i mean)
― Lt. Van Ice Cage (govern yourself accordingly), Sunday, 20 February 2011 18:46 (nine years ago) link
All the alternatives I can think of just will never fly commercially, but eg it would be way more useful for a URL to link directly to an actual bit of content, whether that's a text article, movie, mp3 or status update than it would for it to link to a mountain of HTML/JS/CSS/Flash/w/e.
― stet, Sunday, February 20, 2011 1:05 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
yeah this makes sense, the content is accessible from wherever, but if you want the social, relational, w/e data you have to specifically connect to the particular network (graph? platform?) - it works from a business pov too as in well give you enough of our stuff to become indispensable but if you want the whole deal you have to play on our turf
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 18:47 (nine years ago) link
― HOOS the master?? STEEN NUFF (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, February 20, 2011 12:45 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
twitter rules rss droolz
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 18:48 (nine years ago) link
also open apis (and, shit, even oauth/clones!) GREATLY simplify the development process of a lot of this stuff, as does the quick evolution of really solid frameworks - jquery ajax retrieval methods now vs. six months ago, my god
― Lt. Van Ice Cage (govern yourself accordingly), Sunday, 20 February 2011 18:52 (nine years ago) link
i think governance of the underlying technology behind all this is so decentralized that it's going to continue to be a content issue for the foreseeable future, viz. youview, spotify for instance
right, that's what i mean! w/mobile phones it was tech issues that slowed everyone down, but the reasons for those tech issues slowing everyone down was that the major players wouldn't/couldn't work together on common platforms that everyone could benefit from. with the web it's not tech that's the problem (despite endless discussions over HTML5 or whatever) it's content, and common platforms for content.
file systems are dead - the "rest of us" never really used them in the first place. the app was the portal. if i want to write a doc, i start Word, open things, save things. apple twigged this hardcore with the iPhone. similarly, with the advent of walled gardens and app versions of newspapers, addresses will be dead as well. the question is, what will replace the address bar and/or google as the vanilla starting block for accessing all this stuff?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 20 February 2011 19:24 (nine years ago) link
lol quora is a kind of fascinating oversharing look into startup/valley culture atm http://www.quora.com/Mark-Zuckerberg-1/How-smart-is-Mark-Zuckerberg-academic-wise-Is-he-as-smart-as-Bill-Gates
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 19:48 (nine years ago) link
"porn rules" is a joke but fuck it, porn will always be the innovative industry in how much of the internet works. Hell there was just a conference called http://www.contentprotectionretreat.com/index.html where the porn industry decided "The goal of the CPR is to significantly reduce digital piracy of adult content and to effectively drive those who engage in adult content piracy completely underground by January 2012."
i.e. so while newspapers and big production companies (music, tv and film industries etc.) just spend their time bitching and suing individuals, porn is getting shit done.
and its not like they never proved they can do whatever they put their minds to before, either
― if there is a King Moaty, apparently he is huge into slapstick. (a hoy hoy), Sunday, 20 February 2011 20:24 (nine years ago) link
gdamn it! my answer to the quora gates/zukerb question has already been collapsed
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 20 February 2011 20:25 (nine years ago) link
Possible version of Chrome w/out URL bar: http://www.conceivablytech.com/5746/products/google-may-kill-chrome-url-bar/
― stet, Sunday, 20 February 2011 20:45 (nine years ago) link
i thought this was interesting, re walled gardens, payment, etc:
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 21 February 2011 15:30 (nine years ago) link
although obvs that couldve been avoided w/a more agile approach
― ice cr?m, Sunday, February 20, 2011 5:19 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
for the thread's consideration http://diveintomark.org/archives/2011/02/18/ie9-is-the-new-ie6
― caek, Monday, 21 February 2011 17:26 (nine years ago) link
more on the subject of content platforms:
What choice do publishers have then? They first have to ask themselves two fundamental questions:1. What business are we in? — Are we in the business of creating scarcity in news and media to leverage it against eyeballs for advertisers? Can our current model survive the transition to digital? Are we capable of setting up our own stores? If not, do we understand we must change our revenue streams radically? What sorts of structural and financial remodeling do we have to undergo internally to adjust to giving up 30% to Apple?2. Quo vadis? — If our current distribution has to change, on whose digital platform will we move? Is there, in other words, an alternative to Apple App Store?
1. What business are we in? — Are we in the business of creating scarcity in news and media to leverage it against eyeballs for advertisers? Can our current model survive the transition to digital? Are we capable of setting up our own stores? If not, do we understand we must change our revenue streams radically? What sorts of structural and financial remodeling do we have to undergo internally to adjust to giving up 30% to Apple?
2. Quo vadis? — If our current distribution has to change, on whose digital platform will we move? Is there, in other words, an alternative to Apple App Store?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 21 February 2011 17:38 (nine years ago) link
so carmelo anthony jut got traded to the ny knicks - espn is super conservative abt verifying breaking news so theres no confirmation of the deal on their site
but they do have this lil twitter widget w/all their reporters in it
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 03:42 (nine years ago) link
I think future of web=
* people who use general-purpose browsers "tomorrow" will all be considered about as normal as these dudes http://✧✧✧.mail-arch✧✧✧.com/lynx-✧✧✧@non✧✧✧.o✧✧/msg03394.html
* although perhaps the ubiquity of web competency nowadays means that many people will at least have the ability to use a general-purpose browser in their toolkit somewhere for such as porn, leaks, pirating, etc.
* "autodiscovery" won't be important if services are all linked to clients by apps. nobody is going to go back to operating and maintaining their own homepages no matter how much this guy wants to help us: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/nyregion/16about.html
* hypertext already failed at sharing academic and scientific literature. we're here 20 years later and ACM, IEEE, AAAS, etc all still guard their content behind paywalls and in the form of PDFs. epic, epic fail. so it's safe to say whatever content or open data initiatives we see in the near term (applying RDF concepts to all our data! learning how to make everything namespace-aware and building sweet XSLTs on the fly!) the keepers of the keys will continue as they always have and the amazing, groundbreaking results of all the potential mashups (as opposed to the obvious, dipshit mercator projection of population density as sampled via x service mashups) will stay in somebody's fucking towers, undiscoverable and unlinkable without $$$ up front
* in fact given that everybody is just going to have an app for their news vs. the other guys news it's liable to get far worse than it is today. I mean shit, the wikipedia model itself is to link internally first and then throw all the sources at the bottom, and they're the best of the latter-day web. everybody else links you to their own content period, fuck the rest; provider-specific apps will just make this far, far worse
* so the future of the web is that it becomes so proprietary that it becomes what we always said we wanted out of cable television: a la carte channels. No links between anything, but at least I'm not paying for some shit I don't want. Where there are links they're to FUNNIEZ between FRIENDZ so hey whatever chill out bro you're not even carles
* twitter already disassociates content by two degrees (tweet > obfuscated link > link > content) and the way people use it with tumblr nowadays the world keeps showing up like this (which is UNBELIEVABLY STUPID by the way): tweet > share/retweet > obfuscated link > link > tumblr > reblog > year-old photoshop and/or other artifact of a fictional event
(btw david shields can go fuck himself. terrible. can't trust anybody these days)
* what's the point of the future of the web? who's driving this bus? there's internet2 techies who want to build services to specific technocratic ends, and they've been doing that for a while. then there's kids and kids at heart who want to dick around web2.0 to build networks to satisfy whatever urge is the urge to have today. can anybody make actual money off of them besides apple, zynga and blizzard?
― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 04:56 (nine years ago) link
the web we know today is going to go the way of usenet and homepage rings, I don't think it's going to be replaced by anything so much as forgotten and only used by professors and actual code people. I hate to be all doctorow about it but IF the web is going to be changing significantly in the new social country of the 21st tomorrownets then I think the way it changes is to turn into a thing nobody calls a web anymore
so as for future of the internet I call you 200 channels with nothing on and raise you 80000000 channels. but some of them have porn so there's always something on.
― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 05:08 (nine years ago) link
"When Facebook was getting going, I had these people who would come up to me and they would say, 'I'm not on social media.' And I would say, 'OK. You know, you will be.' And then they would say, 'No, no, no. I value my real-life interactions. I value the moment. I value presence. I value intimacy.' And I would say, ... 'We'll get you eventually.'"
woah with this kind of salesmanship talent no wonder he's a billionaire
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 9 November 2017 22:13 (two years ago) link
real life interactions? ffs.
have you ever had someone LIKE a URL you have referenced? sheer bliss
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 9 November 2017 22:15 (two years ago) link
"when im 160 and just a withered skeleton with skin stretched over it and a million hoses coming out plugged into external replacement organs and taking my food in through a straw ill be laughing at you poor losers"
― Mince Pramthwart (James Morrison), Friday, 10 November 2017 05:01 (two years ago) link
where was the brain in that being
― Dean of the University (Latham Green), Thursday, 16 November 2017 18:00 (two years ago) link
There's a little tank at the bottom, just out of frame
― Mince Pramthwart (James Morrison), Sunday, 19 November 2017 22:55 (two years ago) link
one day you will be able to post to borads with your mind
― ur-oik (rip van wanko), Sunday, 19 November 2017 23:11 (two years ago) link
...and the resulting paste will look just about the same as now
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 20 November 2017 05:25 (two years ago) link
― .oO (silby), Monday, 20 November 2017 06:19 (two years ago) link
― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Friday, 9 February 2018 10:10 (two years ago) link
it's someone's job to "curate" that page
― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Friday, 9 February 2018 19:51 (two years ago) link
check out my new bikini babes feature. it's on
Netscape Internet Service men's from AOL-HuffPost Lifestyle
― Karl Malone, Friday, 9 February 2018 19:59 (two years ago) link
this is from an industry blog that analyzes traffic on the reg so i tend to place a little more trust in it that in the typical broadsheet thinkpiece
"Who is still sharing fake news on social media?"http://www.newswhip.com/2018/04/still-sharing-junk-fake-news/
key takeaway: fear is what drives these shares - the seeming confirmation of things people are already afraid of
― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 24 April 2018 19:31 (two years ago) link
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they're afraid it might be true. Peoples' heads are full of knowledge, facts and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."
Wizard's First Rule, page 560
― davey, Tuesday, 24 April 2018 19:41 (two years ago) link
Terry Goodkind is a pretty bad writer but that bit has always stuck with me.
― davey, Tuesday, 24 April 2018 19:42 (two years ago) link
His popularity as a writer is a demonstration of the truth of that quote.
― Mince Pramthwart (James Morrison), Monday, 14 May 2018 02:53 (two years ago) link
Idk “people are stupid” always seems like a bad analysis to me.
― valorous wokelord (silby), Monday, 14 May 2018 02:55 (two years ago) link
a few idle thoughts i had while brushing my teeth this morning: is the ad-reliant experience of using the internet the same throughout the world? are there countries that use a different model? is the internet, on its current trajectory, inherently capitalistic and thus spreading/reinforcing capitalism across the world as it continues to be adopted and intertwined with daily life? here's what i mean, briefly:
the internet basically runs on advertising (though i realize that model is currently failing, in many ways), which seems natural in the united states. i can use a service for free because theoretically the website can make their money back by making we watch advertisements. but is that true elsewhere in the world? is there a heavily socialist country that somehow subsidizes certain internet properties, or in which they somehow get funding in another way, besides ads? are there places where the subscription/pay-wall model works better, perhaps because of cultural differences in how the website's visitors approach the idea of supporting businesses? (i'm talking out of my ass here; very ignorant obv, sorry, just asking the question).
or is the internet full of ads absolutely everywhere it reaches? and if that's the case, is the expansion of the internet basically spreading capitalism?
these ideas are founded in my own ignorance of what it's like to use the internet across the world (my only substantial international internet experience was behind the great paywall in china circa 2006). and they're also based on an assumption that an ad-reliant model of business is inherently capitalistic, and that there's another viable model that isn't. so...anyway. throwing all that out there
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 2 March 2019 18:53 (one year ago) link
otm. I much prefer to think in terms of inherent design flaws in the systems which comprise our intelligence. We all have them and it takes experience to see them in ourselves and training to mitigate them.
― A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 2 March 2019 19:10 (one year ago) link
Even though you could subsidize a useful replacement (imagine france's minitel but pulled forward 30 years) how do you outpace the shine of what the advertising-driven market can provide?
I don't think this can happen in the free-market parts of the world today. The advertising business model makes too much money and then those businesses can invest much that money they make back in the products.
And outside the free market, for example in China, the real business is helping keep the government in power.
― fajita seas, Sunday, 3 March 2019 03:24 (one year ago) link
Phrases like ‘outside the free market’ and ‘for example China’ should not exist in the same sentence. China hasn’t a hyper capitalist internet (and everything else) with a bread and circuses approach to keeping the government in power. The internet as commercial and capitalist entity funds, supports and provides the manpower for the apparatus that directs and channels freedom of expression. Whilst there is censorship, distraction with consumerism is a much more powerful tool.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Sunday, 3 March 2019 03:46 (one year ago) link
But there's a deeper story to the Chinese market than that. The government does control who can participate in it.
― fajita seas, Sunday, 3 March 2019 16:22 (one year ago) link
good example from china is the baidu medical ads https://www.whatsonweibo.com/behind-baidu-scandal-baidu-putian-medical-group/ and this guide to baidu seo is interesting i think even if you're not trying to promote anything on baidu https://www.dragonmetrics.com/baidu-seo-guide/ the chinese internet for the most part, outside the dark corners, is a mirror of the english-language internet but just with tech companies you've never heard of running things. i wish i could come up with a clear unified statement on how state ownership / investment in media platforms looks translated to internet platforms. recently (i think it's been three, four years since it launched?) you had thepaper 澎湃, basically same level of relevance and respect as huffpo, piggybacking off a larger state media company, has millions in state funds keeping it afloat (but it has also strayed enough from the party line to be subject to a recent crackdown) so it looks markedly different from similar sites operating off advertising, but there are other examples like older rival caixin's online media properties funded mostly from the private sector (backed by tencent first, who bought a stake from a provincial newspaper ) look and feel like you're reading wapo or whatever (paywalls + ads). once outside of those big media platforms it does feel like the chinese internet is more choked with ads? and without adwords to hold a big enough share, so it's more scattershot, more corrupt anus and stomach hospitals / snake oil / online casinos.
― XxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxx (dylannn), Sunday, 3 March 2019 16:45 (one year ago) link
hi can I get more details on corrupt anus and stomach hospitals
― moose; squirrel (silby), Monday, 4 March 2019 17:11 (one year ago) link
― j., Monday, 4 March 2019 17:18 (one year ago) link
No results found for "corrupt anus and stomach hospitals".
― pomenitul, Monday, 4 March 2019 17:19 (one year ago) link
In France most newspaper content is paywalled, sometimes with 3 or 4 free views per month. I guess the big national usa papers are like this now too?
french internet forums like jeuxvideo.com (kind of a french reddit I guess though obv there are french subreddits) are ad heavy so you have a point about this global infection.
― L'assie (Euler), Monday, 4 March 2019 17:19 (one year ago) link
trying to imagine what subgenre of metal would give rise to that as a track title xp
― imago, Monday, 4 March 2019 17:20 (one year ago) link
― pomenitul, Monday, 4 March 2019 17:22 (one year ago) link
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Monday, 7 October 2019 21:11 (seven months ago) link
yes i've been here - http://www.youronlinechoices.com/uk/your-ad-choices
the website barely loads
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Monday, 7 October 2019 21:15 (seven months ago) link
there's also this page? http://optout.networkadvertising.org
tried to read an article on Slate today and 'Agree' is literally the only option. all or nothing. i know i'm being crazy. it's making me crazy. maybe i was always crazy. i feel like richard stallman over here.
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 8 October 2019 19:41 (seven months ago) link
but maybe... maybe if i'm using Privacy Badger it doesn't matter? i could just say yes and my lil' blocker'll block 'em anyway? it's hard to tell from reading their FAQ - https://www.eff.org/privacybadger/faq#What-about-tracking-by-the-sites-I-actively-visit,-like-NYTimes.com-or-Facebook.com
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 8 October 2019 19:44 (seven months ago) link
I used to think the EU mandated cookie warning was almost enough reason to brexit, now i can't get enough of clicking 'reject all'. Gotta love the ones that only let you turn off the advertising cookies one by one, partner by partner, in a list of 50 or more. Nigh on impossible on a phone.
― The Pingularity (ledge), Tuesday, 8 October 2019 19:51 (seven months ago) link
yeah exactly. or a computer tbf. and sometimes that list of advertiser cookies includes entries without a button to turn off the tracker, just a link to the advertiser's website. which turns out to be in dutch.
just cause i'm insane i sent a letter to Slate's privacy address asking them how I was supposed to opt out, and got an actually pretty detailed autoresponse back with various things to do. last graf reads:
"Finally, please also note that your deletion request would only affect data for vendors with data controlled by Slate. Some of the other vendors with which Slate works may have collected data, but they are independent controllers and thus request that users reach out to them directly. You may access a list of these vendors here."
of course that link goes to a webpage that first demands you accept cookies before reading it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 8 October 2019 20:06 (seven months ago) link
patreon yesterday had a pop up ad for a web seminar which covered the whole page and wouldn't allow me to close it without clicking that I was interested in going (I'm not)
― mfktz (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Tuesday, 8 October 2019 20:09 (seven months ago) link
A private equity firm has bought the .org domain, which will likely drive up prices for nonprofits. https://t.co/IrPax3uqBK— VICE (@VICE) November 19, 2019
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 18:03 (six months ago) link
"Ethos Capital," you can't make this stuff up
― Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Tuesday, 19 November 2019 18:09 (six months ago) link
dangit, my personal website is a .org
― Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 19 November 2019 18:18 (six months ago) link
― j., Tuesday, 19 November 2019 18:30 (six months ago) link
serve up .ilx and we'll win the internet
― Le Bateau Ivre, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 18:30 (six months ago) link
minimum buy in to get a gTLD is…prohibitive for goofy hobbyists
― Swilling Ambergris, Esq. (silby), Tuesday, 19 November 2019 18:35 (six months ago) link
i would love to fork out cash for an .ilx domain
― Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 19 November 2019 18:44 (six months ago) link
plus, we could sell it to mazda later on when we go public
― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 19 November 2019 18:46 (six months ago) link
you'd think Acura. but i know a guy at mazda who would love to take away the .ilx domain, if it were available for the right price
― Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 19 November 2019 18:48 (six months ago) link
This could, and should, happen guys
― Le Bateau Ivre, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 18:55 (six months ago) link
huh i always assumed .org had special rules around it like .gov
― ciderpress, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 19:06 (six months ago) link
would he settle for ilxor.com
― stet, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 19:07 (six months ago) link
depends. would you settle for...$140? Plus a reissue of Sonic Youth's Dirty LP in near mint condition? because i would definitely, i mean HE would definitely do that.
― Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 19 November 2019 19:11 (six months ago) link
Is buffy on blu ray yet
― stet, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 22:14 (six months ago) link