617
The internet is worse than it used to be. How did we get here, and can we go back?
(theconversation.com)
Saying the internet was better is a haze of nostalgia, a gross underappreciation of new technologies, and a smattering of truth.
Over 38% of the stuff I flush down the toilet is gone forever, too, and that's ok.
The early Internet was interesting only because it was new and different. Most of the stuff out there was low-quality stuff just for funsies projects. The barrier to entry is still very low. Anyone who wants to put up a website with whatever they're interested in requires no technical expertise and isn't even expensive. But you don't see a lot of that because it's not new or exciting and few people are going to waste their time on it. On the upside, you can now throw up your own federated content system with relatively little work and have a huge community for very very little. Things are gone chiefly because they weren't worth saving. Sure, there are exceptions like DPReview, but they even got a reprieve because they were worth keeping.
Before the advent of filter bubbles, the internet was a creative playground where people explored different ideas, discussed varying perspectives, and collaborated with individuals from “outgroups” – those outside their social circles who may hold opposing views.
And how did anyone find those varying perspectives? Everything was unindexed, even search engines were crap. Fark, Digg and Slashdot, link aggregators and forums are the same as they've always been. Are the majority of those conversations gone? Sure, but you can find another 25,000 of them on Reddit, x, Instagram, and Lemmy, and when those are gone, some other service will replace them.
If people are moving to algo-driven social media, it's because they perceive it as advantageous to them. I found the algo ate too much of my time and moved back to diverse and static youtube clients.
