[HN Gopher] The Bullshit Web (2018)
___________________________________________________________________
The Bullshit Web (2018)
Author : metadat
Score : 104 points
Date : 2022-07-02 18:33 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pxlnv.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (pxlnv.com)
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| A lot of similarity here to roads: The more lanes you add, the
| more cars drive on that road, but it never gets faster to drive
| on.
| ineedasername wrote:
| _> A story at the Hill took over nine seconds to load_
|
| The Hill is what finally pushed me to install an ad blocker.
| Before that it didn't bother me too much to get served ads etc
| that I filtered out of my awareness anyway, but The Hill was
| unusable.
|
| So, I installed an ad blocker and immediately realized how
| negligent I had been-- in terms of quality of web browsing
| experience-- in not doing so earlier. The Hill loaded near
| instantly. Massive improvements all around on other sites as
| well. As in the article, It felt similar to upgrading from dialup
| to a Cable modem.
|
| Unfortunately it seems sites have upped their game in adblocker
| arms races and the gains I achieved when I first installed it are
| incrementally being chipped away as things become ever so
| slightly slower, tick.. tick.. tick... tick... As time goes by.
|
| Suggestions? Is there something more I can do? Besides simply
| disabling JavaScript which breaks many site from usability.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Install the Steven Black hosts.txt or equivalent. Possibly
| tailor to your own needs (e.g. I allow Twitter, but absolutely
| no other social media site).
| [deleted]
| Cyberdog wrote:
| For what it's worth, AdGuard still seems to be holding its own
| against ad blocker blockers. Unlike other blockers, AdGuard is
| a paid service, but well worth it in my opinion and I'd
| recommend it in an instant.
|
| The only place where AdGuard has been failing recently is
| blocking Twitch ads, unfortunately.
| Cyberdog wrote:
| It's an old, old argument, but very true. My first Internet-
| capable computer had a 14.4k modem - that's a theoretical speed
| of 14,000 kilo _bits_ per second. But on the whole I don 't
| really remember the web being slower or less usable than it is
| now, and that was before ad blockers were really a thing. And
| some of the technologies that we have now but not then could
| theoretically have made sites load even faster; PNG instead of
| GIF, MozJPEG compression for JPEGs, SVG for vector graphics, CSS
| for reducing repeated code and getting rid of table-based
| layouts, etc.
|
| But, obviously, the web hasn't gotten faster, because the
| increased bandwidth has been filled with increased nonsense, and
| browsers now download 2MB of nonsense to show a 200-character
| text post. It's this sort of nonsense that is partly the genesis
| for ideas like Gemini, a return to Gopher, or my own KyuWeb;
| limit the capabilities of the medium to vastly improve its speed
| and legibility.
|
| This sort of thing isn't exclusive to the web, either. Is an old
| late-'90s version of Microsoft Word that could run on a machine
| with 4MB of RAM really a thousand times better than one from
| today that requires 4GB?
|
| I really love the web, but sometimes it does piss me off a bit.
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| I truly wish I had the data to back this up, but in my memory
| the web is WAY WAY faster than it was back then even with all
| of the extra "bullshit". I mean the images were like 16 colors
| and 200X300, and even just text based sites were slower and
| latency was worse too. Am I crazy here?
| 121789 wrote:
| Yeah I agree. Lots more bloat now, but I'm not often waiting
| for images to render or sites to load in general
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah - I think people forget, things were really slow back
| then.
| PaulKeeble wrote:
| No doubt the modern web is faster even on moderate xDSL
| connections. I remember web pages taking half a minute to
| load, even relatively basic ones. The 56k v90 was quite a bit
| quicker than 14.4k too. Its not even close to similar I
| remember watching JPG images gradually progress through their
| low quality versions upwards. Pages were a lot lighter back
| then but still much much slower than today.
| FredPret wrote:
| I remember images loading one line at a time. Now I can
| stream 4k video. Not sure what OP is on about. There is lots
| of bloat but we are now on a jumbo jet and we used to be on a
| hot-air balloon
| numpad0 wrote:
| My working theory is that slow behaviors are preferred
| because else people gets startled.
| leeoniya wrote:
| it would feel a lot faster if you could live with viewing max
| res 640x480 or 800x600 images on your 4k display
| abxytg wrote:
| > Is an old late-'90s version of Microsoft Word that could run
| on a machine with 4MB of RAM really a thousand times better
| than one from today that requires 4GB?
|
| 100,000x even. Obviously yes! Even the web -- the things the
| higher resource caps enable are unbelievable. Yes bottom
| feeding news sites are worse for it, boo hoo. Have you see the
| shit you can do in a web browser today? On any device? It's so,
| so, so much cooler and better than anything the 90s had.
| mysterydip wrote:
| I'm really curious what the "killer features" are of present-
| day Word compared to, say, Word 97.
| pixl97 wrote:
| It may be a different answer than you expect...
|
| A lot less developer time spent making sure the application
| fit in a tiny amount of memory.
|
| Of course that sucks for you as a user when an application
| takes up 4+GB of memory for no reason (I'm looking at you
| Teams). But for the company that writes it, it is great.
| Compile and ship, no more weeks or months of trying to
| shave off every bit so you can fit this in 16MB of RAM, or
| on just a few floppies. You have a big customer that will
| sign a 10 million+ contract if you add feature X? Sorry, no
| way to make that work in under 105KB, which means we can't
| ship it.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| It saves when the user wants to, not automatically without
| asking, saving even unintended accidential changes, and
| publishing them to others.
|
| It runs locally, not rendering badly in the browser.
|
| Saving to disk does not require navigation through 3 sub-
| menues.
| Cyberdog wrote:
| > It runs locally, not rendering badly in the browser.
|
| Not sure what you mean by this one - Word '97 didn't run
| in a browser either.
|
| As for your other two features, I still don't see those
| as a 1000-fold improvement.
| ookblah wrote:
| Yeah...56k felt plenty slow back then. Biggest jump for me that
| gave me that wow factor was when we went from 56k to a "cable
| modem".
| powersnail wrote:
| > But on the whole I don't really remember the web being slower
| or less usable than it is now
|
| I don't know, perhaps the internet I had was just too shit, but
| it was so much slower than what I get now. I remember when the
| progress bar was actually meaningful when loading a pure text
| webpage; and I don't get that today unless I'm using a phone
| inside an elevator.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| > But on the whole I don't really remember the web being slower
| or less usable than it is now
|
| We have very different memories then. I very clearly remember
| everything but very simple html taking forever to transfer over
| 56k connection
| Topgamer7 wrote:
| I just turned off image loading by default and would right
| click and select load image.
|
| Generally pages loaded great.
| Cyberdog wrote:
| This was a killer feature in the iCab browser! I loved that
| ambitious little browser and used it for many years, and
| its ability to easily toggle image loading was one of the
| reasons.
| Isamu wrote:
| Ha, me too, I turned off images back then and it made
| everything snappy and very pleasant. I just wanted the
| text, the information.
|
| It's weird though- people want all the nonsense. More and
| more that is the primary use of the web.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| you guys should try and dig up some old home movies of
| using the computer back in the 90s
|
| Nowadays if something isn't a bloated pile of trash, it'll
| literally load up in a few dozen milliseconds or less. Back
| then, even a pretty lightweight text-only site would take
| seconds to load and render (and of course, bloated crap
| sites back then took upwards of a minute to load if you
| left images on)
| lisper wrote:
| Same here. I have very clear memories of dismissing the WWW
| as useless for exactly this reason. Those memories are 30
| years old so they may not be entirely accurate, but the
| principle of embarrassment [1] lends them some support if you
| buy into that sort of thing.
|
| [1] https://cafn.us/2010/12/10/terminology-principle-of-
| embarras...
| tomc1985 wrote:
| I don't know about you guys but I got a hell of a lot done
| on a 56K modem all the way up until the mid-2000s. Hell, I
| was even doing group content on City of Heroes from the
| dial-up connection I had while working my night-shift hotel
| job, and the game played surprisingly well given the
| bandwidth and latencies I had.
| Cyberdogs7 wrote:
| Your screen name forced me into a double take, as it's very
| rare for me to come across a similar name.
|
| On topic, the idea of performance optimization seems to be
| completely lost in large sectors of modern day computer
| science. My recent experience being windows. I have several old
| laptops that had been rendered completely unusable through
| windows updates [one even stopped charging]. However, once
| replacing windows with Ubuntu, they 'feel' like some of the
| fastest machines I have. Hell, even the one that wouldn't
| charge, now charges and works like a charm.
|
| It's sad to think of all the waste, physical, electrical, and
| economical, that stems from poorly optimized code.
| dizhn wrote:
| I remember the name of one particular jpeg I downloaded. We
| used to go to the school lab, start the download, put a paper
| sign on the monitor asking people not to turn it off and come
| back later for our new jpeg.
|
| (It was atol.jpeg)
| icedchai wrote:
| The web has gotten much faster. I remember waiting around for
| at least 5 to 10 seconds for pages to load over 14.4K.
|
| Still, modern web sites are incredibly bloated. There was a
| period in the late 90's where I had an early cable modem
| connection (3 megabits.) All sites were still built for dialup,
| so things loaded at lightning speed. In general, I'd say
| effective speeds have remained constant since the early 2000's
| since site bloat has kept pace with increasing broadband
| speeds.
| onion2k wrote:
| _But, obviously, the web hasn 't gotten faster, because the
| increased bandwidth has been filled with increased nonsense,
| and browsers now download 2MB of nonsense to show a
| 200-character text post._
|
| A 10KB page at 14.4kbps takes 5 seconds to download. A 2MB page
| on a typical 30Mbps connection take less than 1s (ignoring
| improvements latency, changes in TCP frame size, better line
| conditions, etc). Web pages are definitely much bigger, and
| arguably bloated with unnecessary junk, but they still download
| faster than they did in the 14.4kbps days.
|
| Bandwidth speed and page sizes don't explain why you think the
| web was faster decades ago.
|
| I think it's more likely that you're just wrong. I remember
| using the web in 1995 on a 28kbps modem (such speed!), and it
| was slow as hell. It was genuinely click-a-link-and-get-cup-of-
| tea slow a lot of the time. Not only wasy connection awful, a
| lot of hosting companies were slow too. Servers would throttle
| and kill sites that used too much bandwidth. Pages _often_
| failed to load compared to today. I still used it of course
| because it was amazing, but I didn 't _enjoy_ it. Surfing wasn
| 't really possible. Uploading anything was a pipedream. When I
| went to uni in 1997 and got access to broadband for the first
| time it was a revelation. The web became truly useful. I had my
| first website up and running 3 months later and I've never
| looked back...
| Cyberdog wrote:
| Speaking factually, I guess you have to be correct and
| nostalgia is tainting my memories. Maybe my standards were
| also much lower then, so a ten-second page load was less
| offensive then than it is now.
| goodpoint wrote:
| A 200-character text post was not 10KB. Tons of useful
| information was available in pure text.
|
| Also, most webpages were loading in far less than 500ms on a
| newer modems, 56k.
|
| More importantly, a lot of pure-text pages were focused on
| providing dense information that you would read for minutes.
| The load time was negligible in comparison.
|
| Today information density on the web is the opposite.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| yeah but the web on a campus intranet mid 90s was super fast.
| i think you both have valid points.
| Dove wrote:
| I can echo the sentiment. I would love to start over and save
| only the good stuff.
|
| With that said, I am wary of my memory of the web of the 90's
| because everything was so _new_.
|
| There are games I remember loving and seeing no serious flaws
| in twenty-five years ago, that I now go back to at original
| resolutions and original framerates and find completely
| unplayable. But having no point of comparison, what I was
| enthralled by at the time wasn't necessarily excellent control
| or excellent design -- it was being able to move in virtual 3d
| space _at all_.
|
| My dad tells a similar story about Atari's Pong in the 1970's.
| Everyone was so excited by being able to control something on
| the TV screen that nothing else about the experience really
| mattered by comparison.
|
| When the web became popular, the prospect of being able to
| interact with like-minded people _anywhere in the world_ and
| _from all walks of life_ and in communities of a size and power
| and with resources otherwise impossible -- it was all so new.
| And when I remember the time, I remember _that_. I didn 't care
| about having to log into web sites on every visit. I didn't
| care about replicating data across devices. I didn't care about
| unprofessional web pages. I didn't care that everything was
| under construction, the design was universally bad, and that
| things often broke. I didn't care that any interaction had to
| go back to the server. I didn't care that pages were typically
| pretty static, and exploring meant constantly finding new ones
| rather than connecting with an author or community.
|
| But if you dropped me back in the 90's now, I would care about
| all of that stuff.
|
| I'm not defending the bloated and the awful. I often install
| video games now and think "GIGAbytes? What on earth FOR??" I
| often work on software now and see chains of chains of chains
| of dependencies and despair that we have clearly lost our way.
| Web sites crowded with ad-blocker defeating ads make me wish
| for the days when they would merely blink at you, rather than
| waiting 15 seconds and then starting up a video with sound in
| some random corner of the site. I do feel like if someone made
| me emperor, I could start over and do it right. I do wish we
| could all collectively agree to just _not suck_.
|
| I'm just very skeptical that going back in time is quite as
| awesome as memory would lead one to expect.
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| tl;dr which ironically is a good summary of all the bullshit on
| the Web.
|
| Ages ago, I got tired of having these discussions with a certain
| class of programmer:
|
| _me_ : it really sucks that X does Y by default.
|
| _certain class_ : yeah, it does, but there's a switch you can
| set to turn that off.
|
| _me_ : I don't _want_ to spend time learning how to configure X.
|
| _certain class_ : (puzzlement)
| nocman wrote:
| Just because someone suggests a way to work around a problem
| doesn't mean that they aren't also annoyed by the problem.
|
| There are some problems you do not have a viable way to attack
| at the root, and you just have to deal with them. Often other
| people control the thing you would have to change, and will not
| be persuaded to do it your way.
|
| I understand the desire to not have to learn something just to
| be able to remove an annoyance, but isn't having that option
| better than not being able to remove the annoyance at all?
| pluijzer wrote:
| For me the web, granted with an ad blocker, nowadays feels
| snappy. Some pages are indeed bloated but ironically these sites
| are more often than not the types with nothing but regurgitated
| blog spam. Even with my first broadband connection I remember the
| web to be a lot slower in the past. Actually sitting and waiting
| for images to be loaded in line by line for example. I do agree
| that webpages could go on a diet making our current situation
| even better I do believe the feeling of a faster web is an false
| memory out of a nostalgia of a simpler time.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| My first modem was a 2400bps MNP5, before the revelation that was
| the 14.4 HST (sysop discount, naturally). I first used the
| Internet in the early 90s, "pre-Netscape" and for a couple of
| years even "pre-Mosaic". Precisely because so few people had good
| connections, web site owners were economical with their use of
| images, and information was structured so that it loaded quickly.
| Presentation took a back-seat to accessibility.
| tonymet wrote:
| Google made a solid attempt at improving web performance and
| usability with AMP and offering preferred ranking - and hacker
| news mostly skewered them for it.
|
| Publishers need to be compelled to improve performance but the
| current model encourages bloat
| kristopolous wrote:
| > solid attempt
|
| Nope. A compromised attempt.
|
| This is Google's problem; they smuggle in invasiveness and
| control in an attempt to conquer the web wearing a costume of
| benevolence and reasonability.
|
| It's cyber-imperialism. The professed virtues are honorable but
| they have to be instrumented without the power grab
| sacrosanct wrote:
| Worth browsing the web with Lynx for a week just to see how
| convoluted the modern web has become. Roughly 10% of sites are
| viewable in Lynx and have a simple enough layout. Lynx due to it
| being text based also filters out all the AD-Tech, trackers, and
| JS bloat.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)
| tijuco wrote:
| Very good reading. I always say that when people say "hey,
| remember when we had 10G hard drives. They were so small". People
| don't realize that today we have bigger drives but we also have
| bigger files. Of course our pictures today have better quality,
| but proportionately we have similar storage capacity as we had in
| the early 2000's
| tomrod wrote:
| What a great article.
|
| I wish I had a scalpel I could use to cut away the webcruft that
| comes from every direction. Setting up a pihole and turning off
| JS can help, I reckon, but there is still tons of cruft that
| simply doesn't belong.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| This is why 25 years ago in 1997 I proposed BSML:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/19970113025507/http://www.art.ne...
|
| And also AIML (Artificial Intelligence Marketing Language), an
| obvious application of BSML:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/19970112152156/http://art.net/St...
|
| (Actually a parody of VRML, which I did by copying articles
| hyping VRML, and replacing VR with AI):
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/19970113025339/http://art.net/St...
| javajosh wrote:
| Maybe if you paid for your content it would suck less. The
| problem is no-one wants to pay for content, so they have to pay
| for it with ads, which means satisfying the true customer, the
| advertiser. Google tried, for a while, non-cruft ads, but
| eventually the demand for more sensational advertising is what
| drives most of this cruft.
|
| Another driver, which is something front-end devs can do
| something about, is to stop shipping 20MB bundles to the browser,
| stop using 10MB of fonts, and stop front-loading 200MB of images.
| Ignorant use of powerful tools that make adding more and more
| resources to your project feel basically free are a big
| contributor, at least in the webapp space. (Classic CMS software
| also accretes cruft, but generally more slowly over time.)
| tomrod wrote:
| > The problem is no-one wants to pay for content, so they have
| to pay for it with ads, which means satisfying the true
| customer, the advertiser.
|
| This is sort of like blaming the victim, eh?
|
| If I visited _and paid for_ CNN for several years, I 'm still
| loading the cruft.
|
| I mean, I at times have paid for Hulu and Netflix, and Hulu
| added ads to its paid content and Netflix is planning to.
|
| Perhaps blaming the user for the economics of online content is
| insufficient.
| manimino wrote:
| Cable television showed that paying to remove ads does not work
| in the long run.
|
| People who have money to pay for content are precisely the ones
| you want to show ads to.
| mountainb wrote:
| I pay for a lot of content nowadays, less and less of it on the
| web. I spend far less time on the web than I used to, and life
| has become better.
|
| The web is just not a very good medium in general and
| unfortunately the promise of web search has turned out to be
| just a chimera. Conventional methods of research or specialized
| search engines are more time efficient. The only thing the web
| is good for is cheap stimulation, and even for that it isn't
| very good.
| claudiawerner wrote:
| I work for a company where we basically sell access to a SaaS
| behind a frontend powered by React. The customers pay, very
| well as I'm led to believe by our figures. There's no
| advertising. Nobody cares that the frontend is slow, because
| that slowness is because it's an SPA and that's factored in as
| a necessary cost of business.
|
| In other words, even if you pay, there's no reason to think the
| software should be any better.
| mandmandam wrote:
| > Maybe if you paid for your content it would suck less
|
| Haha, maybe, but I really don't think so. People pay for cable
| and still get ads; people pay for Netflix and still get ads, I
| still got ads when on Youtube Premium, etc. Even outside of
| media consumption, there are countless similar examples.
|
| Perhaps, if content was paid for in juicy frictionless
| micropayments, the bullshit web would suck less - for a time.
| But it would begin to suck more and more, until we have the
| same situation or worse (while still paying, more and more).
|
| The companies pumping out these trackers and selling our data
| couldn't care less whether people are subscribing to a service
| or not. They'll offer cash and buy our data until the day that
| shit is illegal.
| tunap wrote:
| The host of a podcast I enjoy held an AMA recently added an
| anecdote to your, and my, opinion.
|
| While He readily appreciated the Patreon subscribers &
| tailored special features for their contributions, he
| admitted the funds from the subscribers were eclipsed by
| several(?) factors by the ad revenues.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| You think _I_ wanted 10MB of fonts? Nope. Talk to Public Affair
| 's design team.
|
| You believe _I_ wanted 200MB of images? Wrong. I wanted text,
| maybe some thumb-nails with pop-up images. But the photography
| group has to exist for a reason.
|
| 20MB bundles of Javascript? Sorry, but between the trackers
| marketing wanted and the fact that my boss' boss wants to have
| some hip new framework on his resume means I'm stuck when maybe
| just some jQuery would have done the job.
|
| You are thinking about the web circa 1995, with the Webmaster
| being the _master_. That 's been gone for a while. We implement
| what others demand, and they don't care if it is slow on
| _other_ machines, they don 't give a damn if it isn't
| accessible, and they could care less if the content is
| essentially empty, just pictures of people smiling because they
| chose this product. We're really not in charge of this unless
| this is a passion project personal site or we're some scrappy
| little startup.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| You know what? We don't actually need all this content that is
| being pooped out of everyone. Because most of it's shit, and
| not worth the time to even watch. Yet people remain convinced
| that we need it, and some of you remain convinced that they
| need to pay for it. What a lie.
|
| Burn it all, I say.
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| Ironically, as I read TFA, that post about the newest React state
| mgmt fad appears just below it on the front page lol
| aimor wrote:
| It doesn't stop there. There's still no good way to validate
| information on the internet.
|
| The internet, much like the real world, is full of untrue
| information, bad advice, and outright lies. Things that don't
| overcome this: Trusted experts, Wikipedia type citations, comment
| sections. Of those I think comment sections are the closest to
| being successful because they at least provide an open platform
| to raise doubt about any info.
| mike_hock wrote:
| To the extent that they do. YouTube comment sections don't
| because they can be censored by the author at will.
| esprehn wrote:
| Should be tagged (2018)
| metadat wrote:
| Thanks, fixed.
| andrewvc wrote:
| What's the point of loading a page in 500ms if the real problem
| people are dealing with is a glut of content and fierce
| competition for our attention.
|
| I wonder if a slower web might be a better web in many ways.
|
| Reduced page load speeds increase engagement. What if I want to
| decrease engagement with the internet?
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| Just did a quick Google, looks like plugins for this exist on
| both Firefox and Chrome!
| thekingofrome wrote:
| Loading a webpage slower isn't going to do anybody any good,
| especially not when someone is trying to complete important
| tasks.
|
| If someone wants to decrease engagement with the internet then
| they should use it less.
|
| If your problem is with the attention economy and media
| overload, then your problem is more likely with apps and sites
| that are specifically tailored to addict the user, rather than
| the fast speeds that admittedly enable them.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| What if I want to shop for my groceries without waiting 10
| seconds for Costco's app to load and then NOT have the
| "Grocery" button jump up half a page just as I'm about to tap
| it because a deals section below it just got finished
| dynamically loading?
| mistersquid wrote:
| > What if I want to shop for my groceries without waiting 10
| seconds for Costco's app to load and then NOT have the
| "Grocery" button jump up half a page just as I'm about to tap
| it because a deals section below it just got finished
| dynamically loading?
|
| Drive to Costco?
| LinuxBender wrote:
| That's easy enough to simulate on Linux if you want to try.
| Replace eth0 with your wan interface. Re-paste the "del" lines
| to clear the added latency. If testing this on a remote host I
| would suggest adding a cron job to run the "del" lines every 10
| minutes. I am typing this from memory so it may not work quite
| right. Use "tc -s -p qdisc" to get the packet statistics. All
| of these commands need to be run as root or with sudo.
| # outbound qdisc tc qdisc del dev eth0 root >
| /dev/null 2>&1 tc qdisc del dev eth0 ingress >
| /dev/null 2>&1 tc qdisc add dev eth0 root netem delay
| 250ms 20ms # inbound qdisc modprobe ifb
| numifbs=1 && ip link set dev ifb0 up tc qdisc del dev
| ifb0 root > /dev/null 2>&1 tc qdisc del dev ifb0
| ingress > /dev/null 2>&1 tc qdisc add dev ifb0 root
| netem delay 250ms 20ms
|
| 250ms 20ms means add a latency of 250ms with a variability of
| 20ms. This test will break at some point but one could test the
| impact of this using a speed test [1][2]
|
| [1] - https://www.dslreports.com/speedtest#
|
| [2] - https://fast.com/
| gennarro wrote:
| I don't really understand the complaint. If you don't like the
| CNN website, don't go to CNN or use CNN lite, which has been well
| documented on HN. No one is forcing you to visit the site.
|
| Also, blocking webfonts is trivially easy at this stage so if you
| have specific complaints then you can take matters into your own
| hands with little more than a flip of a setting.
| remram wrote:
| I don't understand the complaint. If you don't have a problem
| with the web or don't experience those problems, don't comment
| on this HN thread. No one is forcing you to like it or engage
| with this post.
| sacrosanct wrote:
| CNN has a 'lite' version: https://lite.cnn.com/en
| allarm wrote:
| Idk, in my case I just stopped using web at all, with some
| exceptions like hn and some messengers. I've passed the point
| where I missed "the old web", I don't really care anymore. I'm
| back to reading books, that's what I had been doing before the
| Internet, so that's just getting back to roots. I don't read
| news, I haven't been using social networks for at least a
| decade, and I feel good. Modern web is a shit show I just can't
| stand.
| thekingofrome wrote:
| The complaint is more about the general direction that the web
| is taking.
|
| It's all well and good saying "just don't use X website", but
| most news sites have plenty of features that are either
| annoying or outright disrespectful to the user.
|
| That aside though, somebody who likes articles published by CNN
| has good reason to complain, because the things they like are
| being filled with bloat/are annoying to access.
| dang wrote:
| Discussed at the time:
|
| _The Bullshit Web_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17655089 - July 2018 (550
| comments)
| [deleted]
| mynameishere wrote:
| Everybody has to put something in their weekly report, and so the
| website gets a couple KBs larger every week.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-02 23:00 UTC)