[HN Gopher] Why isn't the internet more fun and weird? (2019) ___________________________________________________________________ Why isn't the internet more fun and weird? (2019) Author : tsujp Score : 223 points Date : 2022-07-06 11:07 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (jarredsumner.com) (TXT) w3m dump (jarredsumner.com) | boringuser1 wrote: | beardedman wrote: | It was, but then went mainstream. And much like Metallica, the | later stuff just isn't as good. | RajT88 wrote: | My favorite bit of the old, weird internet was Portal Of Evil. | | Which took the "look at the weird stuff I found" aspect of | stumbleupon, and used it as comedic fodder to poke fun at all the | weird stuff. | jdbernard wrote: | This irks me: | | > We -- the programmers, designers, product people -- | collectively decided that users don't deserve the right to code | in everyday products. | | Nope. People chose the simpler platforms and tools with lower | barrier to entry (no need to code) and the strange, fun, weird | things were choked out or relegated to the unseen corners of the | Internet. For a brief period you had a lot of people learning to | code at some level because it was the only way to engage with the | Internet at all. | | It wasn't developers, designers, etc. that decided things should | no longer have access to the tools, it was the consumer base at | large who consistently chose the smoother, simpler, easier-to- | use, less flexible, locked-down products. | | People still have access to the tools. The Internet has an | extremely low barrier to entry. It is accessible in a way most | serious technology isn't. My son has been publishing his own | page, full of weird little games and odd styling choices, etc. | since he was nine. | | Most people don't want products like MySpace. They voluntarily | chose Facebook. | | I hope this company finds a successful niche. I'm glad for any | tools that encourage people to invest in their own creativity. | But I doubt they are going to achieve mainstream success. | Hopefully I'm wrong. | silent_cal wrote: | The "old web" was quirky and cool, but it could also be extremely | horrifying and disgusting. I miss some of it, but definitely not | all of it. | BLKNSLVR wrote: | rotten.com, ratemypoo. Aaah, my wasted teenage years. | simongray wrote: | Native advertisement disguised as a blog post. | bemmu wrote: | VRChat may be the most fun and weird thing right now. | lifeisstillgood wrote: | As more people joined the internet, the content reverted to the | mean of humanity. What surprised us is just how low down that | mean is. | | Twitter : We hoped for listening in on The Algonquin Round Table | we got listening to the last round at Al's bar. | | Facebook We hoped for pleasent updates from our friends lives, we | got content moderators with PTSD | | Instagram: we hoped for pictures of our friends lives - we got | told our friends aren't as good as other peoples friends. | tarkin2 wrote: | Because Google is the gatekeeper to what you see, and Google | prioritises the boring and bland and CEO-friendly websites you | see. | Blikkentrekker wrote: | Correction: English-language Google is. -- I find that very | often the vaunted Anglo-Saxon moralism indeed only polices | English content. | | I can find the most interesting and entertaining subjects | searching in Japanese that do not show up when the same search | is replicated in English, where it instead gives me something | only barely related to my search that was simply popular | enough. | | It's quite simple how Twitter is actually a bastion of free | expression, so long it not be in English. | O__________O wrote: | Every culture has their norms, including Japan. | | Japan may have some areas they are more flexible with, but | they have just as many, if not more that they rigid about | too. | | People are different, trying to make them the same would be | just as boring. | gonzo41 wrote: | Well replace google with Facebook and Apple. Google just wants | you to click adds. | jjoonathan wrote: | Advertisers are Google's real cu$tomer and they don't like to | see their ads next to your experimental goatse art. | DamnInteresting wrote: | Google also prioritizes what is new over what is original. This | rewards the lazy borderline plagiarism copycats, resulting in | perpetual soulless regurgitation of content. | lancesells wrote: | Google isn't my gatekeeper. Stop using them and giving them | power | hansword wrote: | I think this internet probably still exists, in a different form | of course (15years later). | | I just think its discoverability has been swamped by the | platforms overwhelming everything with low-effort-to-consume | autoplay-until-I-fall-asleep content. | annoyingnoob wrote: | https://www.cameronsworld.net | darkmarmot wrote: | Honestly, the internet has seemed somewhat barren to me since the | death of Flash. | moolcool wrote: | Technical purists disparage flash, all with valid reasons, but | ignore all the respects in which it was extremely good. It | allowed developers (young amateur/learning developers | especially) to easily make extremely high quality games and | animations, and publish them online in a format that was easy | to access and run on very low-spec hardware. Nothing else I | know of today comes close. | dschuetz wrote: | Because of Big Tech. They buy everything up, make it go away, or | monetize the shit out of it. Nothing weird or exciting survives. | jtaft wrote: | https://zombo.com | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | I love that after all these years, this still exists. | winternett wrote: | I think it's a wide-scale effect of everyone scrambling in trying | to make Internet money to fund themselves through our current | tough and uncertain times but finding out that a lot of the Web | 3.0 stuff and the Gig economy was undercover "scammy A.F.". Many | people do not have savings now because of crypto, stock | manipulation, and NFT schemes... | | There is a lot of heavy stuff going on around the world right | now, and many of the routes to money success are heavily | overcomplicated and undesirable in execution. | | I have been keeping calm on my end through working on music and | editing (often strange and comical) TikTok videos (e.g. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9__Jq3hyHuI), commenting on HN | and Twitter, and through doing occasional stand up comedy open | mic nights... | [deleted] | vannevar wrote: | This is yet anther transformer-driven bot, right? | [deleted] | adnmcq999 wrote: | Lol | endisneigh wrote: | "Why isn't the internet more fun and weird?!?" | | _Turns post into an advertisement_ | wnkrshm wrote: | Everything is money. But! There are subcultures that are hard | to monetize though, e.g. furry subculture since it comes with | so much pornography. No brand wants to be close to that. At | this point, as a furry artist, I feel it's refreshing that this | very weird and mostly harmless adult nature keeps the rest of | the art also somewhat safe and in the hands of small artists. | egypturnash wrote: | Hello fellow furry pornmonger :) | | It's fucking GREAT really, furry is _poison_ to megacorps and | there's a ton of room for individual creators to thrive | without corporations relentlessly optimizing their cash | extraction at huge scales. | Akronymus wrote: | Yeah, it is nice being in at least one fandom that is mostly | left alone from most of the mainstream. | | One thing I love about the greater furry community is that a | LOT of art gets aggregated to a certain site, which I am sure | you are aware of, that puts high value on proper | sourcing/tagging. (And still respects the wishes of the | creators) | | Maybe unrelated: Do you think furry commissions are so | expensive because so many furries are wealthy, or do furries | pursue wealth to pay for commissions? | egypturnash wrote: | There's _tons_ of broke-ass furries who can 't afford a ton | of commissions. There's also a lot of furries with tech | jobs who have more money than they know what to do with, | and are willing to pay artists fees that approach a | significant percentage of what the techie's hourly wage | works out to. | | Furry art is a significant part of my income and trust me: | furry commissions are _crazy cheap_. Yes, even that one guy | charging in the low four figures - he does some pretty | complex work that I 'd charge four figures for too, if I | was willing to work that long on a client's piece. | | I could be making a _lot_ more money if I 'd stayed in the | animation industry, or if I was hunting corporate | illustration work. But then I'd have to deal with much | tighter deadlines, restrictive style guides, clients who | really have no idea what they want and no idea how to | articulate how what I just spent a while working on fails | to capture what they want, figuring out how to make the | lucrative but incredibly boring world of, say, standardized | shipping pallets visually interesting, and a whole bunch of | office politics. Drawing happy animal-headed people having | a good time is a lot more fun. It's nice when a corporate | gig comes my way now and then because it can pay a few | months rent, but it definitely takes its toll in the amount | of tedious bullshit I have to deal with. | | I'd also maybe have things like "health insurance" and "a | retirement fund" but, hey. It's a tradeoff. | Akronymus wrote: | >Furry art is a significant part of my income | | looked up your art, pretty cool style youve got going. | | And yeah, corporate anything can be a pretty miserable | experience. | | Also, maybe I shouldve added a /s to my implication that | most if not all furries are somewhat wealthy. | egypturnash wrote: | Thanks! | | And yeah, it didn't read as sarcasm to me, oh well :) | winternett wrote: | These days for me, the content that is considered an Ad is | really anything that makes a large company profit, or anything | that is possibly a scammy or low value product. I don't | consider an individual trying to gain attention for their | independent work as an ad... And it can be far more easily | ignored than a bunch of corporate employees brigading online | about Tesla or Uber on a daily basis, and getting away with it | in droves. | | That being said, I think sometimes it's better to just reply | based on the title and theme of the HN post and not focus on | the other promotional elements or ignore the post altogether | provided that the poster is not really trying to spam or | deceive us... Coming up with creative ways to work your own | struggling ideas into conversations online is not really easy | when you don't have a marketing staff and lots of ad money. | Taylor_OD wrote: | Odd. This is a promotional post and but because it has a fun | headline no one seems to care. | freilanzer wrote: | Because it's _corporate_ and _serious business_. | passedandfuture wrote: | Because you're using the wrong search engine. Try Mojeek for | fresh results, and get involved with their community. | | I believe Mojeek will be a gamechanger. | blippage wrote: | I recently found www.gopher.com, which has a different feel to | than Google or DuckDuckGo. | 6510 wrote: | thanks, impressive results. | javajosh wrote: | God I hate articles like this. If you want to make a myspace | clone, then make one. No-one is stopping you. | | The problem is that people didn't like MySpace. It looked like | crap and giving people that level of control made them feel bad. | Only a few fearless kids actually made the gloriously crappy | content you admire. | | The other problem is that the Internet is well-settled terrain | now, and users have many many options about where to hang their | hat(s) and what they do there. Try convincing a Medium author | that HTML is a good authoring tool. | | This article is the Internet version of "good old days" | nostalgia, which is, ironically, retrograde and horrifying. One | important exception: if the internet ever deprecates the tools | needed to make another myspace (http 1.1, html, css, available ip | addresses, ability to host a durable process) then you'd have my | full-throated support. And of course you're allowed to like old | things that failed because of market pressure. Just don't fool | yourself that the world is worse because the thing you like fell | out of fashion. As much as I hate to admit it, the world is | better off without coin-op arcades. | sumitviii wrote: | I wish I could upvote it 10 times. | | No one is stopping these nostalgic folks. Those older techs | aren't banned. They have just lost their war for network | effect. | tb0ne wrote: | You make it seem like todays internet monopolies exist because | of all the platform there are, they are the most well-designed | ones, and they would simply be replaced if a better product | came along. | | I disagree with that, youtube for example is not the prevalent | video platform today because it is better than its competitors. | Youtube today is absolutely terrible. | | But it does not get replaced, because it is the established | platform, and using a competitor is suicide because your | content will never get any traction. | | So we are stuck with a horribly monopolized web, where the | established websites can become very shitty, but you have to | stay on them because everyone else is. | javajosh wrote: | The phrase you're looking for is "network effect". And it is | indeed a real thing [0]. But I find it ironic you're implying | it's implacable on a thread about MySpace. | | 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect | sumitviii wrote: | >and using a competitor is suicide because your content will | never get any traction | | You can post on multiple platforms, you know. Content | creators aren't stupid. They post on whichever platform is | buzzing. It's their day job and the most popular ones know | what they are doing than any of us. | Torwald wrote: | Because "mobile first." | greenbit wrote: | "introducing codeblog" | | .. you might want to lead with that. You know, so people know | what kind of thing they're clicking on | aahortwwy2022 wrote: | When I was a teenager I came up with several technical and | nontechnical websites, zines with programming and reverse | engineering tutorials, interviews, and just plain fucking around. | And everyone else around me was pretty much the same. There were | multiple "scenes", we formed deep relations on IRC, even though | almost none knew my real name or how I looked. I still meet some | of those people online (few even in real life) more than 20 years | later. | | Nowadays, I don't put anything too valuable on the web. Because | why should I do anything for free, right? I don't live at the | expense of my parents anymore, and society does not provide me | with means to survive if I spend my time doing all that and | "share". Now, since I'm unemployed and basically unemployable (no | linkedin/facebook/whatever, disagree with gov policies re. covid | and the society that accepts and promotes them hence don't get | out much, won't consider working for unethical companies that | track people for any purpose whatsoever (there are so many of | those), introversion, etc.), I continue to do what I always did, | write code, come up with theories that sometimes lead to personal | projects, etc. But I definitely won't put these up on the web. | | Nowadays, I don't put anything too nonconforming on the web. | There are still people doing stuff "for free". They get money | from something or somewhere else. But nowadays it's mostly boring | as shit. Why? Because nowadays people learn to abide by the | dystopia's unwritten dicta: conform, obey, self-censor, follow, | like, share. When you can no longer post anonymously, when | everything you say is on a permanent record, when everything | around you is moderated to Hell. When every movement is tracked, | your best bet is to move along in the direction of the herd. If | you don't, you will be disappeared from the relevant environment. | Such a society can't be fun and weird; it actively discourages | fun and weird. | makz wrote: | So much this | rchaud wrote: | Weirdness is a choice. Taking on an affectation of weirdness in | order to sell products or advertising is quite obvious to the | beholder, who ignores it, and not long after that, the Internet | becomes a wasteland of e-commerce webshops and ad-ridden 'fun | blogs'. | | There's also an enormous difference between personal 'weird' and | corporate 'weird'. 'Personal weird' came from early-gen web | designers who had to do everything on their own, including making | GIFs with primitive '90s image editors. We have more advanced | tools on our phones today, yet bloggers would sooner pick | something off the shelf from GIPHY (a Facebook company), because | it's easier. | | We don't even have weird homemade clipart anymore, we have | soulless stock graphics from Canva. And a big Discord button | where the webrings would be. | BLKNSLVR wrote: | The availability of fun and weird has redefined both fun and | weird. | | What's relatively tame and normal by today's standards would have | been groundbreaking only a few years ago. | | Desensitisation is the issue, not a dearth of fun and weird. | | A guilty pleasure of mine are some of those klrdubs YouTube | videos. My daughter launches a series of them at me every now and | then, and whilst many of them are so-so, a few of them are | absolutely spot-on genius. Fun, clever, and weird. | | Maybe accessibility contributes towards this desensitisation too? | At any time that level of genius is at our fingertips. We're | spoilt by the accessibility of the top 0.01% creative talents of | humanity. | | Maybe we also actively avoid some of the fun and weird because we | know we'll get caught in a productivity destroying rabbit hole of | fun and weirdness? | rambambram wrote: | Interesting take. I think it definitely plays a role. | BrainVirus wrote: | The reason the web is not fun anymore is because it's now | hypercentralized. Companies that effectively control the web | found the formula that works for them. They want you to | mindlessly consume streams of curated information. They want you | to do that at maximum throughput. Most of your "interactions" | with websites are fake and exist only to improve "engagement". | | If everyone starts fiddling with colors and creative designs, it | will decrease the throughput of an average information consumer. | Therefore, no meaningful customization is allowed. It's that | simple. | mattgreenrocks wrote: | Don't sugar coat it. Call it what it really is: gentrification. | | 2000: creating content and fostering an online community in | private was seen as super nerdy. | | 2022: binge watching TikTok in public and grown-ass adults | fighting over Internet Points is "normal." | | And, yeah, the content is much worse. It's a lot of overly- | socialized people taking care to say the things they should say | so the great Algorithm gives them more Internet Points. And those | Internet Points warp the process of creation, especially when | they're tied to money. | | Like the article said, it's all taken way too seriously, and | there's no going back. | ren_engineer wrote: | most people are boring/normal by definition and the internet is | now mainstream. The internet used to be filled with a pretty | weird subset of the general population but now that is drowned | out by the masses. The old school internet still exists to some | degree but you are going to have to look harder to find where the | weird people are at and most the people claiming they want the | "weird" internet back would probably complain about those places | | same thing happens in any community/society as it ages and grows. | People who create it are different from those who move in later | once things are great | [deleted] | NoGravitas wrote: | > most people are boring/normal by definition and the internet | is now mainstream. The internet used to be filled with a pretty | weird subset of the general population but now that is drowned | out by the masses. | | That doesn't explain MySpace, though. Extremely | mainstream/mass-oriented, but still fun and weird, while it | lasted. | projektfu wrote: | Eventually it got to the point where comments on people's | pages were making them unreadable or crashing the browser. | That was too much customizability. | joshmanders wrote: | MySpace really wasn't that weird, they just had a bug that | allowed people to express themselves with code and decided to | leave it. | MaxfordAndSons wrote: | Exactly; it was _novel_ not weird. And if it had prevailed | over FB it would have adopted a slicker, uniform ui by | default sooner or later (maybe let old heads keep seeing | version 1 like Reddit does). | an9n wrote: | I just don't want it to involve React | marginalia_nu wrote: | All the fun and weird stuff is still around, it just typically | doesn't SEO well and doesn't show up on Google, and is too long- | tail to show up on popularity-based algorithms like those of | Reddit or Facebook. | | I've spent the last year or so building tools and algorithms | specifically to dig up "fun and weird". It's still there: | https://search.marginalia.nu/explore/random | BrainVirus wrote: | _> All the fun and weird stuff is still around, it just | typically doesn't SEO well and doesn't show up on Google, and | is too long-tail to show up on popularity-based algorithms like | those of Reddit or Facebook._ | | In other words, it's a bunch of dead websites and there is | little incentive to create anything out of the ordinary. | marginalia_nu wrote: | Dead in what sense? | BrainVirus wrote: | The web in the 90s was an evolving, alive ecosystem. | Without the ecosystem, websites that approximate something | old-school are standalone entities. Flowers in a vase. They | might look the same or even temporarily feel the same, but | they are both authored and browsed in an entirely different | context. | | For example, browsing a website that looks original, but is | likely abandoned is a very different experience from | browsing it in the 90s or early 00s when it was a part of | something big, new and exciting. Even if the content is | identical. The same principle applies to authoring. | | I have seen countless claims that all the technology that | someone could use in the 90s is still available. Regardless | of whether it's true or not (mostly not), it misses the | point. The _social project_ that was web 1.0 is now | defunct. | | Paradoxically, the only way to create something equivalent | to old-school web now is to invent something entirely new. | marginalia_nu wrote: | I don't get what you mean. That ecosystem is still alive, | though. It's easy to miss because lives in the shadow of | another parallel ecosystem, but it's still there, and it | still roughly functions the same. | | Web 1.0 was and still is a fringe project by and for | oddballs. Just like most people in the '90s didn't know | how to get on the web, most people today can't find their | way past google and social media. In that regard, it's | very much still the same. | hbn wrote: | There's still something to be said about the fact that all the | mainstream internet platforms don't really encourage much in | terms of "internet creativity" outside of the tight boundaries | that are allowed (uploading a video, writing text, posting a | picture, etc) | | The fact that MySpace was mainstream and allowed for HTML/CSS | hacking did exactly what the article said -- it tricked a | generation of teenagers into learning how to do that "weird | internet stuff." | | For the most part, if you want to do anything like that now | you're gonna be stuck figuring out domains and hosting and | whatnot which isn't nearly as fun as typing some HTML into the | platform you and your friends already use. So not as many | people are going to do it. | aprinsen wrote: | MySpace was my first coding experience and I think ultimately | tipped me to CS in school. | | I remember laying out my page like a pink and black | newspaper. All that work for no one to read lol. | | But now it is essentially my career | Agamus wrote: | Excellent site - thank you! | | Perhaps it is the way we think about the internet that has also | changed... | | Back in the day, when I wanted to find something on the | internet, I knew I was going to have to dig and search and | explore. My mind expected this experience. | | Since web 2.0, my mind doesn't work the same way. | butterNaN wrote: | I wonder if there's a search engine that ranks results with | worst SEOs first | marginalia_nu wrote: | It's not _that_ far off what my search engine does. | tjr225 wrote: | Precisely. It isn't fun or weird because YOU aren't fun or | weird. If you were fun or weird you'd already know where all | the fun and weird stuff is. | marginalia_nu wrote: | Another aspect is that your view of the internet, which on | its own is incomprehensibly large, is largely shaped by the | tools you use to interact with it. It's difficult to become | aware of just how much your choice of internet gateway will | shape your view of what exists. | | If your primary mechanism is Hacker News, the internet is | going to look like it's dominated by a bunch of startups and | open source projects. | | If your primary mechanism is Twitter, the internet is going | to be dominated by big-name thought leaders, there will | appear to be a lot of outrage and inflamed conflict, maybe | some culture wars stuff will stay on your radar. | | If your primary mechanism is Google, then a bunch of huge | websites are going to be extremely prominent: Wikipedia, | Goodreads, WebMD, Pinterest, Stackoverflow, etc. It's also | going to look like every blog is just a bunch of spam. | | If your primary mechanism is Facebook, then the web will look | like a bunch of tabloid news articles, try-hard viral videos, | minions memes. | | and so on and so forth. | a1o wrote: | My navigator tends to remember the websites I view more, | which are mostly communities, and I tend to click on the | links it has when the browser opens. So I tend to use these | communities as the internet gateway as you say - like | hacker news! This concept of the internet gateway and the | perceptual islands of ideas is really interesting, I think | you should someday write about this. | SturgeonsLaw wrote: | This is one of the things I liked about StumbleUpon. You never | knew what you were going to get, but it was almost always | something interesting. | korse wrote: | Thanks. | solarkraft wrote: | Awesome. I think there's a huge need for a search engine | filtering out commercial content. It's basically just all spam. | | Recently I wanted to find information on hacking a device I had | obtained - but of course any search query I could throw at | search engines only yielded ways to buy it or low-effort | reviews. I tried marginalia but it seems like the index wasn't | quite large enough for my purpose yet. | marginalia_nu wrote: | May well be that what you were looking for is in the index. | My algorithms have a lot of potential for improvement. Right | now they only really work well for broad topical searches. | They are also entirely blind to some fairly rich websites, | such as certain types of forums. | petesamrogers wrote: | I created instant.gallery (no spam, no ads, no notifications) to | be a fun and weird website - the problem is getting quality sites | noticed without a huge ad spend. The big funnels (twitter, google | and fb/ig) have taken over. | awsrocks wrote: | dalbasal wrote: | I think these old "remember MySpace" ideas are off the mark. | | What actually happened was not minor changes in UX culture. | | The web became powerful, instead of a subculture over to the | side. It became democratic and populist, with everyone | participating rather than a self selected few. It became | monopolized, regulated by Google/etc. and regulatable because | giant companies are easier to regulate. The coming of copyright | is underated as a factor in changing the web. | | Remember the spindletop days. Why is the oils industry no fun | anymore? | AidenVennis wrote: | First I thought the article (or maybe promotion) didn't gave an | answer to the topic question, but it actually did; the need to | sanitizing inputs destroyed what myspace enabled. The need for | security is bigger than the need for customisation nowadays, you | can't have a social network that has a big security flaw because | users could edit the code on their pages. The product this | article promotes isn't a solution, you still need developers to | create the components users want, and users are not going to send | requests to add something they think would be "fun" or "weird". | kwatsonafter wrote: | because either you get a groovy bathroom wall or you get a | heavily moderated bathroom wall. | | You need populaces with higher than 86% literacy to make things | like, "Internets" work. | tylershuster wrote: | https://tylershuster.github.io/an-ode-to-the-pomegranate/ | BrainVirus wrote: | _> Codeblog is powered by MDX, a new flavor of Markdown that | supports JSX. With MDX, words look like words, and code looks | like HTML._ | | Or, you know, you can write HTML and avoid all that complexity. | | About 100 lines of PHP code to add navigation, feed and routing. | | About 50 lines of CSS to avoid cringe nonsense like P tags while | retaining the power of everything else in the browser. (The main | ingredient being white-space: pre-line.) | | Then you just upload your posts via SFTP and they become | published. | | Instantly portable to any shared hosting provider in the world. | The only local tool requirement is an SFTP client. | sailfast wrote: | This is a submarine article at its finest. | | "Make the internet weird again with codeblog" | peterweyand0 wrote: | The link to codeblog.app doesn't work. Maybe hugged to death? | xhrpost wrote: | > The internet added<canvas />, but the internet stopped being | one. | | Wow, well stated. I particularly miss just seeing more original | content written by people's personal experiences. Now, it seems | like any Google search results in bloat-ware sites with a ton of | journalistic fluff around a few data points that came out on a | news wire. | | I personally have some hope in the Gemini protocol returning some | value to this space. It doesn't quite fit the "internet as a | canvas" model, being text based with only links to images, but I | think there is a lot of potential to bring more interesting | content to the forefront again. | masswerk wrote: | Ok, I made something weird, recently: | https://www.masswerk.at/nowgobang/2022/philosophia-mechanica | | In case you asked, there's also an explanation for this. :-) | | (Notebook or desktop preferred, at least some mobile browsers | seem to have issues with scaling SVG origins.) | vannevar wrote: | There are lots of fun and weird things on the internet, but SEO | prevents you from seeing most of them---you end up seeing only | the parts that someone is motivated to pay to get you to look at. | That's essentially Google's business model. | jsight wrote: | I agree. Search having such a bias towards SEO as a measure of | credibility has been incredibly damaging. | vannevar wrote: | Another related problem is the pathological economy of | kickbacks that has developed on the internet. Early on,it made | some sense to offer a small finders fee for referring traffic | that bought something---you were connecting someone with a | service they needed but couldn't easily find online since the | search engines were not very good. Now it would be trivially | easy to find almost any online service if those services | weren't deliberately obfuscated by a jungle of middlemen trying | to be the one that snags the referral fee. | lancesells wrote: | I'm always thinking of building an old-school directory of | interesting sites on a limited number of topics. With the only | automation being checking if the website is still up and either | removing it or redirecting to an archive. | kossTKR wrote: | I remember the thousands of interesting and weird pages listed on | StumbleUpon - directories of obscure topics, avant garde art | projects and detailed field specific blogs - many of them both | pretty and thoroughly made. | | Mind expanding stuff. | | I feel like today all of that has moved to silos like tiktok and | instagram, in extreme short form formats that are easily | disposable - so almost no one creates truly great "compilations" | of stuff, directories, blogs, galleries or whatever - it's all | just streams of disconnected content free floating towards | oblivion in a few days. | | This has made everything bite-sized and fragmented everyones | attention as nothing is getting polished or curated to | perfection. | | I miss people polishing stuff, then just letting it sit out there | for people to enjoy. Today everything is hidden after a few days | - so the rare gems disappear too while the algorithms and search | engines favour the easily devourable in the first place. | | We need something like Stumbleupon back, does that exist? I | wonder why it wasn't viable. | vimy wrote: | https://stumblingon.com/ | | I like this clone. | kixiQu wrote: | My site [1] tends to get linked to by these kinds of things | (well, more than by normal things) so I've found a few just | through referrer traffic, and joining webrings has been fun | too. | | https://gossipsweb.net | | https://fediring.net | | https://nightfall.city | | https://linkbudz.m455.casa | | https://indieblog.page | | https://indieweb.xyz | | https://stumblingon.com | | https://webring.dinhe.net | | https://hotlinewebring.club | | https://handmade-web.net | | https://biglist.terraaeon.com | | https://xn--sr8hvo.ws | | https://nownownow.com | | https://blogsurf.io | | https://theforest.link | | There's a ton of cool stuff going on on the internet, much even | public, but the ethic by which things are shared still seems to | me to resemble these insights: https://maggieappleton.com/cozy- | web Thinking of things as small social niches is helpful in | figuring out where the best bits are. | | [1] https://maya.land :) | ya1sec wrote: | Ah I just commented about my app, Moonjump, which uses Gossip | Web as one of the sites to source material from. Just found | Gossip Web a couple weeks ago. Great job! | | Here's mine: https://moonjump.app | nathias wrote: | thx for the list, I already knew about your page, very cool | jkepler wrote: | Thanks for this list! | rhn_mk1 wrote: | I doubt StumbleUpon would be able to take off in the same form | today - it installed a browser toolbar, collected a profile of | your interests, and collected your up/downvotes to fed them all | to an opaque algorithm that took you to the next random page. | Who knows where that data went. | | Could we come up with a privacy-preserving equivalent to | stumbleupon today? | notriddle wrote: | Firefox's Pocket recommendations took a good approach. The | browser downloads a big daily file with "potential | recommendations", then filters it at the client side. | | The big downside was that, because it was turned on by | default, a whole bunch of people who didn't actually want it | had it foisted upon them, so it got a very bad reputation | right out the gate. Right algorithm, bad execution. | solarkraft wrote: | I actually really like Pocket's recommendations, but yeah, | the way it's all forced on you it's basically an ad. That's | pretty much why I feel like I have to boycott it _despite | liking the product_. It 's such a Mozilla move to take | something nice and turn it bad for no good reason. | slothtrop wrote: | At inception it was just a website that redirected you. There | are variations of this created all the time but centered | around essays and journalism. It would be trivial to create | what is basically a glorified copy of SU, but no one cares | enough to do it. Or more accurately, they already exist and | we collectively don't care enough to notice. | algoeci wrote: | Read Something Interesting (www.readsomethinginteresting.com) | is a great compilation of interesting blog posts, I've spent | many an long afternoon discovering new blogs there. | really_relay wrote: | Seconding this, Read Something Interesting is amazing. | falcolas wrote: | > so almost no one creates truly great "compilations" of stuff, | directories, blogs, galleries or whatever | | I did this for quite awhile using bookmarks, and the link rot | is real. If 10% of my historical bookmarks were valid, I'd be | pleasantly surprised. | RobotToaster wrote: | It won't help with ones that are already gone, but there's a | firefox plugin called Archiveror that automatically archives | your bookmarks. | marginalia_nu wrote: | Anecdotally, my own search engine index starts to feel stale | after about two months. I wonder what the half-life of a link | is. | falcolas wrote: | I'm highly tempted to run a "caching" proxy 24x7 just to | keep archives of some of these decaying gems around past | their lifespan on the web. | | I'd say I could just use archive.org (or similar), but | their (admittedly necessary) respect of robots.txt makes | their archive incomplete. | quest88 wrote: | I've considered running my own IA | (https://github.com/internetarchive/heritrix3), which | only archives my chrome history, which is stored in a | local sqlite db. | | I haven't had the time to figure out the details of how | the pieces should be glued together. | [deleted] | causi wrote: | I also wish for a modern local archiving solution. | HTTRACK just doesn't cut it anymore, unless you really | want a local copy of a webcomic that stopped updating in | 2003. | kordlessagain wrote: | I use screenshots on my search engine to work around this | issue. If you are interested, I have an open server | deployment for it. | runevault wrote: | StumbleUpon was such a fun way to blow time where you needed to | do something in a bit but had a few spare minutes. At one point | in time I probably had a lot of random ass fun bookmarks | through that. | joe__f wrote: | I liked Stumbleupon, I miss it too | TheLastStumbler wrote: | I was at StumbleUpon at shutdown and for a few years before. | I'm creating a single-purpose account to avoid doxxing myself | on my main account. Here's a non-exhaustive list of things that | killed SU. | | SU relied on individual human curators to discover worthy new | web pages instead of trying to crawl the web in bulk. Our most | passionate users, the people who would submit great new URLs, | tag URLs, rate heavily, and curate good collections, were heavy | users of our XUL based Firefox extension. We were never able to | build an extension as featureful post-XUL and that hurt new | content acquisition and categorization. | | The linked content we served to users on the web had to be | iframeable. That described most of the web in the early years | of SU. By the time of the shutdown, most new sites and even | many established sites couldn't be displayed in iframes any | more. It would have been _technically_ possible to replicate | most of the iframe experience without iframes by serving up our | own crawled copies of pages, but then we would have been | infringing copyright. Iframes allowed SU to show a third party | page without actually copying it. | | Over time, more sites disallowed crawling via robots.txt or by | thwarting them without prior declaration by rejecting "crawler- | looking" requests that didn't come from Google. | | Our mobile apps allowed us to serve content in a webview even | if it wasn't iframeable, but mobile platforms inherently | excluded a lot of the "weird and wonderful" stuff that people | loved SU for. For example, our online games category contained | mostly Flash games. Even most of the non-Flash games assumed | either keyboard or mouse access; few of them worked well on a | phone's touch screen. Similar problems applied to other | interactive content (simulations, interactive visualizations). | Take away the interactive content and SU started to look more | like just another app for passive scrolling. | | Web pages became increasingly encrusted with ads, nags, and | tracking scripts. I was the final developer responsible for | maintenance on our Android app. 95% of the performance | complaints we received about the app were, in truth, complaints | about the analytics and ads an individual recommended web page | was loading. This was also the source of 95% of the complaints | about ads that we received. SU monetized itself with | interstitial ads between recommended web pages. Every ad | running _on_ a recommended page was put there by the site | owner, not us. But negative reviews and customer emails blamed | us for the battery-killing, device-heating, content-obscuring | ads running on-page. The ad problem was much less severe for | people who used the web site instead of mobile apps, since they | were largely power users who had ad blockers installed, but see | previous problems about iframes and Firefox plugins. | | Consolidation toward siloed content platforms certainly didn't | help either. But I think that SU would have been able to keep | going until the present day if not for the problems mentioned | above. Some of them seem like mere happenstances of history; I | could imagine Flash living a lot longer if it hadn't been a | notorious source of exploitable security holes. Other things, | like long-form articles getting increasingly barnacled with | ads, nags, analytics, and paywalls, seem like a more inevitable | outcome of the collapse of old-media print revenue. | | One thing I've idly pondered since SU shut down is just | recommending weird-old-web content that's findable in the | Wayback Machine yet missing from the modern internet. The | beauty would be two-fold: it's likely to be cleaner content in | the first place, and you can transform it (e.g. running Reader | Mode over it server-side) without worrying about the site | owners coming after you for copyright infringement. Or at least | not worrying _as much_. It seems like marginalia_nu has managed | to find a goodly amount of content that still lives so maybe | resorting to the Wayback Machine isn 't necessary at all. | ndespres wrote: | A lot of it is still out there! A personal favorite of mine is | https://www.fujichia.com/ which is, among other things, a blog | inside a castle, with a fish pond outside and an art gallery. | It reminds me of a simpler time when everyone had a | handcrafted, bespoke HTML homepage with all sorts of secrets | and surprises. | hbn wrote: | Here's a site I like to link whenever this discussion comes up | (not associated): | | https://wiby.me | | I love hopping in and hitting the "surprise me" every once in a | while, and reading some obscure webpage written by an actual | person with a passion for a subject. In the past I've seen a | site dedicated to the soundtrack for a film series (I can't | remember which), not even necessarily streaming the soundtrack | or something, but just a bunch of articles about every facet of | these soundtracks. | | Just now I got linked to a page about Kodak Photo CDs | | http://www.tedfelix.com/PhotoCD/ | BbzzbB wrote: | In a similar vein, I like Marginala's discover/site hopping | mode. The little cards make it easier to get the vibe of more | than one site at a time too. | | https://search.marginalia.nu/explore/random | quartz wrote: | Wow this is fantastic! | | Landed on some HAM radio operator's personal text-only site | and then a site about birds in some far off place in Nova | Scotia: http://www.capebretonbirds.ca/. | Stratoscope wrote: | Oh my gosh, the "surprise me" link took me here: | | http://www.rechenmaschinen-illustrated.com/ | | It's a site full of photos and descriptions of antique | calculators! | ConstantVigil wrote: | Got this link: | | https://mebious.neocities.org/Layer/Wierd.html | | It's a Thought Experiments Lain website | | P.S. There absolutely is definitely going to be sound coming | through speakers. Fair heads up. | skyyler wrote: | I really enjoy that the Lain fans are not slowing down in | the slightest with their love for Lain. | penneyd wrote: | http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/bifurcated/rivets/ - This is pretty | great, run by my old professor (and I graduated in '95...) | ajvs wrote: | Reddit and other social media has largely replaced it I'd say | (not to the same quality though). | marginalia_nu wrote: | Huh. | | I feel like Reddit doesn't really have links anymore. The | subreddits that have external links are usually spam | subreddits which humans don't visit. | | The human-inhabited subreddits seem to mostly be favoring | selftext, images, youtube videos, maybe wikipedia, and | possibly some image hosts (but they are falling out of favor | since imgur turned to shit). Very rarely do they seem to link | to other websites. | tmaly wrote: | I think we would need something like a modern Geocities to | encourage people to start building indices again. | | It would have to support mobile, perhaps have a nice editor | like the Medium mobile app had. | kradeelav wrote: | Good news, it exists over on neocities which is experiencing | something of a revival in younger circles now. :) | lotsofpulp wrote: | >I wonder why it wasn't viable. | | Because for the most part, people making content would rather | earn money for their content than not earn money. The silos of | TikTok and Instagram and YouTube allow for sufficiently low | transaction costs such that this market of advertisers | interested in buying attention and content creators interested | in buying money can exist. | | Maybe stumbleupon was too early, but the fact that the app | ecosystem makes it much more difficult to copy content makes | the silos much more appealing to both content creators and | advertisers. | ghaff wrote: | And even if the vast majority of them don't in fact make | material money, many of them have a hope of doing so and act | accordingly. | kossTKR wrote: | An economic explanation makes sense. I wonder if a | monetizable ecosystem could exists with longer form content | in _multiple_ forms, ie. multimedia, a word that has almost | disappeared. | | There is Patreon, Substack, Youtube and others that does | work, the problem lies in the curation and personalisation | that seems to have gone out the window replaced by algos and | simple designs with bland and uninspired designs and | concepts. | saltsucker wrote: | I wish the app moguls would just give us a "Turn off | Personalization" option and let me explore freely. I turn | off all history tracking on YouTube, but it doesn't matter. | Whether it's on or off, you can't explore a topic deeply. | You have 1-2 videos on the subject, then you have | completely random unrelated click-bait garbage. | | Even music apps are disappointing. Sometimes they do well, | but most of the time it seems not. I play a radio station | for Mat Corby, which is a pretty chill downtempo vibe, and | the app throws in stuff from my library that has no | relation--like Kanye West's Jesus Walks. Literally did that | multiple times. Those vibes could not be more different. | | Maybe cataloging music is a difficult problem, but there | was a time (maybe 2010?) when YouTube would efficiently | suggest music that had a vibe to what I was listening to, | and it helped me find many artists I listed to now. | | Edit: And a time when Apple's Genius was not a bad house | party DJ | low_common wrote: | It's called TikTok. The internet evolved dude. | tinsmith wrote: | "Evolved" is not the word I would use. As the Internet was | already showing signs of being twisted by its own mythos in | the 1990's, there was plenty of then-obvious opportunity that | resulted in the type of profit-driven curation we see today. | I remember the Internet then, but I feel a lot of people | allow the lense of nostalgia to twist it into something far | more wild and pure than it actually was. | Chinjut wrote: | The post you are replying to mentioned TikTok. | robonerd wrote: | TikTok used to suggest all sorts of long-form articles. | Tiktok is all short-form video; a bunch of vapid trash. | ineedtosleep wrote: | IMO it's not just about being bite-sized, memeable content | catering to the lowest common denominator. It's that nearly | everyone making content is copying marketing strategies. Back | then it was more of a show-and-tell vibe, now everything is | trying to sell something. | WastingMyTime89 wrote: | Yes, I think people miss the genuineness more than the fun. | Everything happening nowadays seems to be geared towards | selling you something. It seems to go further than the | internet too. Reading the discussion on pubs closing on this | site, some people seem to genuinely have internalised that | they themselves are a product which should be optimised in | some form of globalised meat market. Late stage capitalism is | a bit depressing. | vitaflo wrote: | Everyone has become a sellout. When I was growing up this was | considered a bad thing. Today it's a virtue. | munificent wrote: | Maybe less virtue and more necessary evil. It was a lot | easier to not be a sellout in the economic boom of the 90s | when you could find that paid the bills. The younger | generation now is barely scraping by. They aren't into | hustle culture because they love it, they do it because | they're broke. | floren wrote: | But 99.99% of people could stream Twitch 10 hours a day, | put out half a dozen Youtube videos a week, chase every | TikTok trend, and never make a dime. And at the end of it | all? They wasted so much of their time doing things to | chase the money, instead of things they liked, and when | Twitch decides they're not going to preserve archives | from unpopular streams, they don't even have the artifact | left over. | bombcar wrote: | Twitch/TikTok/YouTube is the "move to LA and do | foodservice whist waiting to hit it big" of the current | generation. You don't _actually_ make any money doing it, | but you think someday you will. | WastingMyTime89 wrote: | I don't think people are broke per say. They have been | promoted to and have internalised the idea that if you | are not a huge success you are a failure but in absolute | term most people seem to be doing fine. | schnevets wrote: | This is especially ironic since the original article was | using nostalgia to sell his new codeblog service... | greggsy wrote: | I feel like the pendulum is swinging back. Interest rates, | rent, housing and commodity prices are up, so discretionary | spending will almost certainly be lower. | | Could that reduce demand for marketing and advertising in | general? Maybe the tighter market will drive up demand for | more aggressive data capture? Where does all that leave | social sites and content creators who but their empire | selling fast fashion an overpriced gaming accessories | during a time when access to money was easier? | a1o wrote: | There's not incentives currently for the no money involved | approach. Before, there was still some unknown promise of | the thing you are doing being discovered at some point, and | also you could still sellout - lots of creators did this | eventually. The noise is really high today. | retcon wrote: | I've done a penance ^h^h career in advertising ,[0] and I | left because advertising sold out. Advertising and | commercial art/advertising/deductible graphics used to | nurture the most amazing arrays of cultural perpetual | moonlighting geniuses. Now that went down the first | conversion funnel long ago. We're not even a number were | just amorphous $rnd now. | | [0]Computational advertising for print in the very early | nineties...) | | Edit: a last gasp website I absolutely considered Sui | Generis and was invaluable in the graphics world was | Drawn.ca . I'd be immensely grateful to hear of any | mirrors or archive. | egfx wrote: | I've built something different that I blog about with a show | and tell. I love my product but the weird thing is dev.to the | perfect portal to blog about such things is shadowbanned on | HN. | researchers wrote: | A lot of that content has moved to newsletters and Twitter | threads. If you know the right people to follow, there are a | lot of niche, quirky, and insightful pieces that remind me of | the homepages of yore. | | One problem is that these things get lost in the timeline. So I | made a StumbleUpon for Twitter threads [0]. Check it out! | | [0] https://mood.surf | NietzscheanNull wrote: | I really love the design/idea, but after hitting "Shuffle" a | few times, it looks like it threw an unhandled exception due | to an async error (now I just get a TypeError on every page | load): | O@https://mood.surf/build/routes/tweets/$tweetId- | ID4B42CB.js:1:8106 | Zi@https://mood.surf/build/entry.client-R3Z7O5RV.js:5:64683 | li@https://mood.surf/build/entry.client-R3Z7O5RV.js:5:74110 | bs@https://mood.surf/build/entry.client-R3Z7O5RV.js:9:104095 | Kf@https://mood.surf/build/entry.client-R3Z7O5RV.js:9:104026 | st@https://mood.surf/build/entry.client-R3Z7O5RV.js:9:103886 | yi@https://mood.surf/build/entry.client-R3Z7O5RV.js:7:100770 | yi@[native code] | @https://mood.surf/build/entry.client-R3Z7O5RV.js:5:50511 | @https://mood.surf/build/entry.client-R3Z7O5RV.js:1:4097 | _s@https://mood.surf/build/entry.client-R3Z7O5RV.js:5:50458 | we@https://mood.surf/build/entry.client-R3Z7O5RV.js:5:50393 | Ve@https://mood.surf/build/entry.client-R3Z7O5RV.js:7:98358 | bi@https://mood.surf/build/entry.client-R3Z7O5RV.js:5:69948 | bi@[native code] onChange@https://mood.surf/build/_shar | ed/chunk-23IGV2EQ.js:9:31745 | u@https://mood.surf/build/_shared/chunk-23IGV2EQ.js:9:18647 | @https://mood.surf/build/_shared/chunk-23IGV2EQ.js:9:26238 | asyncFunctionResume@[native code] @[native code] | | promiseReactionJobWithoutPromise@[native code] | researchers wrote: | Thanks for reporting this. I think it has to do with | certain tweets being made private/inaccessible after being | added to the index. I'll look into it. | bombcar wrote: | I remember things like the DOOM FAQ | https://doomwiki.org/wiki/Official_Doom_FAQ/Original_text and | there was one for Star Wars, also. I printed them out and read | them; hundreds of pages. | RajT88 wrote: | Definitely check out: | | https://neocities.org/ | asciiresort wrote: | I'm surprised no one mentioned Neocities which is a spiritual | revival of Geocities and the early 2000s web. The aesthetic is | much more pronounced, possible too pronounced. | WFHRenaissance wrote: | It's still fun and weird, but it's in the dark corners of Twitter | where you find these communities, Milady. | s0teri0s wrote: | The same reason television isn't more fun and weird. | paulpauper wrote: | The internet is dominated by winner-take-all markets. Niche sites | generally don't stand a chance unless they get lucky. | amelius wrote: | > Why isn't the internet more fun and weird? | | Etiquette. For example, humor is frowned upon on some forums (HN | included). | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | I've found that humor on HN is fine, it just can't be the low- | effort trash you usually see on reddit. | | Reddit loves to beat the dead horse until it's not even | recognizable as something that used to be an animal. | kevstev wrote: | Any forum that does not frown upon it ends up with a bunch of | low effort rehashed posts by people who don't know enough to | actually discuss the topic at hand. This dilutes an interesting | conversation at best, and at worst just makes the signal/noise | ratio so low that people with knowledge on the topic get | drowned out for the lols and eventually stop contributing. Its | nice that HN is an island away from that. | jansan wrote: | HN actually holds the current record for being the most | humorless forum on the internet (sorry, can't seem to find link | atm). | elteto wrote: | Citation needed. | | /j | dgb23 wrote: | There is a specific type of gem you find on HN sometimes: | full-blown rants. I find them very entertaining and started | to collect them recently. | Akronymus wrote: | Also, occasionally there are REALLY high quality, altough | subtle, jokes in a comment that is still a part of a | productive discussion. Humour for humours sake is | definitely frowned upon though. | mellavora wrote: | such as the above post | Akronymus wrote: | So subtle, it flew over my head and is still flying off | into the sunset. I genuinly thought it was just someone | enjoying collecting rants. (Which, some rants are quite | enjoyable to read.) | dgb23 wrote: | When I realized I was making a joke it was already too | late! | | In all seriousness I actually did start to collect HN | rants I find funny a short while ago. There is something | about elaborate rants that just gets me. Similarly I love | elaborate, negative (social media) reviews. They are | often way too serious and over the top. | [deleted] | 6510 wrote: | We need some kind of framework for humor development. | | Lets start with the scripted spaghetti jokes, work towards | functional humor then eventually do classes. OOH! | causi wrote: | I enjoyed the internet more when I had fifty bookmarks instead of | five. | mym1990 wrote: | In a nutshell, my internet routine has become: Check email > | check ESPN > check HN > check WSJ. Every blog site I visit | nowadays is literally full of ads, popups, etc...the content to | ad ratio seems to be about 50/50, which is just bleh. I 100% | think the internet still has lots of interesting things, but I | think so much has moved to a centralized location nowadays, its a | bit harder to find the unique parts of the web. | rel2thr wrote: | get on Urbit, it's early but it feels pretty weird | | You have to learn a new language to do anything, people are | publishing weird sci-fi on it , there are raves and parties , it | is self selecting a lot of weird people | egypturnash wrote: | I find it somewhat ironic that despite starting as a love letter | to the colorful, fun things people did with MySpace, this post is | still black text on a white background like the entire rest of | the modern web (that's not in dark mode). Pick some damn colors | and make a statement, dude. | CamelCaseName wrote: | Just look at one of the best platforms for "fun and weird" - | YouTube. | | The algorithm aggressively promotes freshness (things posted in | the past few hours for certain queries!) and 10+ minute long | videos. | | Every algorithm change directly impacts what creators, create, | because no one wants to put in a whole lot of work for something | to never be seen. | | If, for example, the ideal format for a joke or video is 3 | minutes, that either gets disappeared from public view or becomes | part of a longer video. | | The real answer, in my opinion, is that current recommendation | engines prioritize profit rather than quality or innovation. Or | perhaps their evaluation metrics are so bad that their goal is | misunderstood. Or perhaps those who stand to profit have become | too adept at gaming algorithms (or human psychology e.g. lewd | thumbnails) that they degrade results. | | ...or perhaps we all suffer from nostalgia and forget how | terrible the results were of yesteryear. | | Who knows, all I know is I feel disappointed in what the internet | has become. Even this thread is really just an ad, hijacking our | biases and climbing the HN ranks accordingly. | _gabe_ wrote: | > The algorithm aggressively promotes freshness (things posted | in the past few hours for certain queries!) and 10+ minute long | videos. | | I mostly agree, but there are some counterexamples that provide | very in depth, quality information and have gotten popular | because of it. Off the top of my head, Ben Eater, Sebastian | Lague, 3Blue1Brown, and Reducible. | | I think it's still very possible to get stuff that doesn't fit | into the algorithm to take off if you make it interesting and | high quality :) | ayngg wrote: | The internet has changed from communities of interest to | communities of people who commoditize social interaction within | those interests. On the surface they seem fairly close to | actual communities but they incentivize different things which | changes how the community operates and personally I think they | don't provide many of the healthy benefits of communities while | cultivating some pretty unhealthy behavior loops. | layer8 wrote: | This convinced me that the HN upvote button should throw | confetti. | reaperducer wrote: | The answer is fear. The internet used to be full of fun, and | whimsey, and people doing strange things, and being accepted for | it. | | This applies to web sites, social media, and even discussion | forms like HN. | | If you try to express humor on 90% of the internet today, you are | attacked by anonymous mobs of people who get dopamine hits from | being offended for other people who they have not met, and may | not even exist. | | Case in point: | | In another thread, someone accidentally or through auto-correct | used the word "silicone" instead of "silicon." A helpful HNer | replied: | | _You mean silicon. Silicone means something else._ | | In the early days of the internet, someone could then have | replied "What a boob!" and a certain percentage of the viewers | would have gotten a slight giggle from it and moved on with their | lives. Those who didn't find it humorous would also have moved on | with their lives. | | But today, the self-righteous internet mobs would attack the | person who wrote the boob comment, so people self-censor. | | Almost any time someone introduces any humor into HN, for | example, someone points to imaginary "rules" and gets upset that | if something isn't humorous to 100% of every single person on the | planet, it shouldn't be uttered in public. Well, guess what -- | you're never going to get 100% of the people on the planet to | agree about anything, so get over it. | quaffapint wrote: | It's been listed here before, but a fun ride that my son and I | like to take in our Internet explorations... | | https://wilderness.land/ | MaxfordAndSons wrote: | These periodic articles hand-wringing over the loss of old | internet quirkiness are basically just re-posing a question | isomorphic to "Why aren't people more fun and weird?" or "Why | isn't society/culture/reality more fun and weird?", which are not | actually interesting questions in my opinion. I mean, I get it, | the internet used to be a different before it was the primary | infrastructure for most human productivity, but is it not | basically self-evident why things get less fun and weird when the | user base goes from futurist nerds to everyone else? | ChrisArchitect wrote: | (2019) | | Previous discussion from not really that long ago when this was | first posted, probably alot of same sentiment as the question has | been asked many times last few years. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038327 | micromacrofoot wrote: | The internet is more fun and weird than it has ever been, but | there's astronomically more boring unfun content getting in the | way of finding fun stuff. Kind of the same story offline. | dylan604 wrote: | Isn't this just art imitating life? In real life, the boring is | every where. You have to find those niche | stores/clubs/eateries/etc by putting forth effort vs just going | to the same-ol-same-ol that advertises to get your attention. | prawn wrote: | I think this is probably correct. The fun stuff is still there, | but the people trying to profit from their creations are more | motivated to get it in front of you (SEO effort, etc). | thibran wrote: | > Why isn't the internet more fun and weird? | | Because everything is complicated now. To code your own website | you have to learn hundreds of hours of web technologies. There is | no clear way and a lot of old, now wrong, advice in old blog | posts. This limits the creativity that can be expressed a lot and | is probably the main reason why "everyone" is now using | "platforms". | kderbyma wrote: | I disagree. its no harder to program today than it was 15 years | ago. in fact it is easier. its less meaningful....less | satisfying....and has been eroded by copy-cats and everyone | spinning up a product instead of a passion project. | verifex wrote: | I didn't see a conversation on this in the comments, maybe I | missed it, but I think one of the reasons why you don't see as | much creative control over web pages is spambots. Lots of things | that I've put up on my own personal web page that let anyone add | things to it also allowed spambots to invade. And since most | software to repel spambots needs to be rather advanced to work | effectively, you see instances where the user content part just | keeps locked up until it's closed completely. | | This is a problem that big companies can solve, but it's much | trickier for one guy with a web page to solve. | EddieDante wrote: | This sales pitch doesn't impress me. The internet isn't fun or | weird any longer because corporations have taken over, and most | normies aren't going to bother to learn how to build and operate | their own websites. Just like most normies aren't going to bother | to become their own sysadmins so they can run GNU/Linux on their | PCs. | | Most people are fine with the Web being what it is today: QVC | with a comments section. | corford wrote: | >QVC with a comments section | | haha this is gold :) | schroeding wrote: | But the internet was already taken over by corporations during | the time this article reminisces about, wasn't it? | | MySpace _was_ owned by a corporation, but allowed massive | customization including custom CSS anyway. Youtube also allowed | way more customization in the past (remember the old profile | pages?), all those small local social networks that often | allowed straight custom HTML died when Facebook expanded | worldwide, they were mostly for-profit. | rnd0 wrote: | Not exclusively taken over, no. It was more balanced between | the corporate and the non-commercial. | raxxorraxor wrote: | QVC is almost quality content compared to parts of the web. | Corporations do like it sanitized and fun is the lowest common | denominator of content that is still able to hold your | attention while reaching the largest audience as possible. | | But there is also truth that creativity of people gets stifled | by locked down environments. In the past myspace blogs got a | lot of mockery but I guess most people will miss it in contrast | social media we have today. There is good stuff too and Tiktok | is not the end of society, but the interesting stuff that can | hold your attention beyond 10 minutes is rare. Perhaps it was | never different and just seems this way because there is | unlimited content. | Kaotique wrote: | Fun and weird has moved into TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram with | stickers, music, sounds and overlays. It allows millions of | people to enjoy creating fun and weird things and not only the | handful of people who want to mess around with html snippets. | | I miss it too, but we are the minority. | tarkin2 wrote: | I find TikTok and Instagram primarily about vanity, show- | boating and moral crusades than creative expression. Of course, | the internet of old had those negative elements in it, but now | those seem to have become the bread and butter of such | networks. | xnx wrote: | Dig deeper. TikTok is fantastically weird and niche. I've | learned about so many things I'd never seen on the web or | YouTube like small scale trains that people ride around in | their back yard, throw gliders, and tether car racing. | low_common wrote: | TikTok, Youtube, and Instagram have tons of cool content. This | isn't 2005 anymore. | randommind wrote: | btw it is worth mentioning for those interested that a German guy | recently cloned the old myspace: https://spacehey.com/ | dhosek wrote: | MySpace letting people put CSS and HTML into their pages was a | _huge_ security nightmare. My wife, before she left the company, | led the security team and it was a constant battle to keep JS | injection attacks off the site. I can only imagine how much worse | it would be in 2022 vs 2008. | FartyMcFarter wrote: | I think the Internet is fun and weird. I mean, you can find | videos of people playing metal and reggae guitar riffs over crazy | preachers speaking in tongues: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsTcs1nU5MU | fleddr wrote: | It's an awkward and elitist thing to say, but I believe it to be | true: whatever is embraced by the masses, suffers in some ways. | | The expert/nerd internet was pioneering, weird, edgy, | cooperative. The internet for the masses is...different. | | You'll see the same effect in movies, following "safe" formulas. | Every movie must have a romantic side story, no matter how | irrelevant. It must deliver to the broadest audience possible. | And of course, nothing should be thought-provoking, keep it | middle of the road. | | Check out musical charts, songs are so repetitive that they seem | AI generated. | | I've found another recent example in F1 racing. It's a pretty | technical sport that used to have a fairly limited following. Now | the thing is exploding and there's friction between the | "original" fans and the clueless idiots spoiling the well (not my | words). | | As soon as you have the masses on board, this obviously also | invites a heavy commercialization of any space, with goals | entirely opposite to the original spirit of the internet. | | Concluding, the only way to get it back, is to be elitist. Create | well defined spaces, heavily curated in both members and content. | robonerd wrote: | Maybe Gopher or one of those similar inspired projects is the | future after all. Too weird for mass appeal. | CobrastanJorji wrote: | I might phrase it, "whatever is embraced by the masses becomes | more appealing to the masses." Broadening in appeal is not | necessarily worse, although it's surely worse from the | perspective of the initial specialized interest group. | | Yes, the Internet of yesteryear was more interesting to our | type of people, but it had no appeal whatsoever to anyone else. | The world is better off today with an Internet that billions | find fun and useful, even if it's way less fun for us | specifically. | fleddr wrote: | Honestly, I think we have a discovery problem. | | There's plenty of room for both groups. In a way the internet | is limitless. A lot of that weirdness still exists, it's just | incredibly hard to find. | nick_ wrote: | Something like a tragedy of the commons in creativity. | hardwaresofton wrote: | Related: this guy built bun[0] (the new javascript runtime built | with Zig and JavascriptCore) | | [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31993429 | asciiresort wrote: | How is this related? | kderbyma wrote: | Individuals want customization, novelty and the ability to relate | between one another and share and show off.....companies want | ubiquity and uniformity amongst their user base...... | remram wrote: | I don't understand. Having those 3 quirky HTML tags is fine, but | can users add other tags? How do they go about doing that? Can | they enter the React definition of those tags somewhere on their | site's configuration? Or in the page? Or install them from a | marketplace, like the Sticker Packs of some apps? | | Right now this reads as "content platforms today don't let you | enter code, so publish with us we don't allow code but we have | confetti". | aprinsen wrote: | I mean, if you can write arbitrary jsx and react, seems like | you can define your own components? | papito wrote: | Because the barrier of entry is gone. Some level of difficulty of | creating content weeded out the morons. It is now flooded with | "content creators" of at best average intelligence. The early web | was glorious. A bunch of weirdos and nerds with at least some | technical skills created personal websites, mostly horrible- | looking, and linked to each other. There were counters, | guestbooks, _moderated_ discussion boards... | | We were children discovering a new world, all over again. It was | full of wonder and magic. | | Now - any idiot can whip out their phone and write anything they | want, in a few seconds, and create "content". And THEN we all | have to process that shit. | marginalia_nu wrote: | While this rationale sounds true, but it doesn't actually align | with my observations. | | Most of the web's noise content isn't low-effort comments, but | low-effort commercial websites: Sometimes "tutorials" for | extremely easy tasks padded with a bunch of superfluous | instructions, sometimes freebooting other content, other times | apparently AI-generated texts that seem legitimate at first | glance but don't really make sense. | papito wrote: | Yes, absolutely, but it's in the same vein. In the past, to | create content you had to go through some things. | | I still remember being on the phone with Network Solutions | for an hour to activate my first domain. They asked for my | password... Over the phone.... Now content creation is easy | and, yes, automated. | marginalia_nu wrote: | Scraping blogs for content to steal and training language | models to produce legit-seeming blog posts is hardly low- | entry stuff, surely? | jamal-kumar wrote: | Wasn't the hugest reason that they stopped allowing people to | write their own code in myspace and made it into something nobody | uses anymore was because you could do code injection attacks on | it? [1] I mean doesn't anyone else remember that kid who got | convicted of a felony for getting everyone's myspace pages to say | 'but most of all, samy is my hero'? [2] | | [1] | https://css.csail.mit.edu/6.858/2019/readings/advisory4.5.06... | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samy_(computer_worm) | totemandtoken wrote: | I was thinking about this earlier today. Several years ago I used | to read Gwern's blog and I was thinking to myself how difficult | it would be for someone to do anything remotely similar in | today's environment. It's not just the superficial stuff the | author of this article is mentioning - editing HTML and CSS and | glitter. It's deeper than that. There's just not enough attention | to go around. The economics are off and the incentives are | misaligned. | | No one's going to read a hyper-neurotic blog post about a | quantified self experiment anymore and that sort of content won't | fare well on tik tok. And it's a shame. | ya1sec wrote: | I made an app called Moonjump as a tool to browse the fun/weird | internet. It's a server that redirects you to a random page | harvested from Are.na, Hacker News, Marginalia Search, Gossip | Web, and other sources yet to be configured... I saw someoe | mentioned Wiby - totally forgot to include that. Going to do it | this weekend! | | My project aims spark curiosity and provide a portal to the vast | collection of interesting material hidden by the commercial web. | The source material is compiled with care by users of these | aggregation platforms. Since this accumulation is performed by | hand, pages are saved because they had an effect on the users who | saved them. Hopefully you will find things that have an effect on | you. Everything opens in a new tab, so you can easily close and | jump again. I find that it's fun to map the jump function | (https://moonjump.app/jump) to a keyboard shortcut. | | Try it out: https://moonjump.app | cutler wrote: | React.js and friends. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-06 23:00 UTC)