I’ve been saying this for years. The internet was better when you had to be a little bit more intelligent than the average person to access it.
Back when you needed knowledge of computers and software, modems, anti-virus, hardware etc, it kind of meant you needed a brain in your head to gain access. I’m not saying that made the internet an overtly-intelligent space, but it was more intelligent and measured than it is today.
As soon a smart phones and data plans entered the game, you could be as dumb as a second coat of paint and gain access with a single button. That opened the flood gates for the stupid. Now the stupid are here en mass and internet is just a dumpster fire full of retards.
The stupid and retards are not who make the web not worthwhile, it’s corporations, commerce and capitalism. Also those are who brought the stupid in there in the first place to be able to sell them their crap.
I imagine you’re probably talking more about content, but you’ve uncovered a pet peeve of mine having more to do with the structure of web pages.
The original vision of html was to have this beautiful format that flows text and graphics elegantly over whatever space you give it. I remember thinking this is great! One day we will have pocket-sized displays and the web is already future-proofed to work seamlessly in that world.
Then fast-forward to smart phones. By now, web pages were so rigidly formatted that they had to design special mobile versions of every site.
Marketing ruins everything.
I think that’s too generalized. Marketing finances the Internet just as it has always financed print media (including the good, even inversitgative journalism).
I would definitely prefer a world in which sources of content are often paid-only instead of ad-supported, but the main thing needed for such a world is a higher minimum wage so more people have disposable income to distribute to authors they appreciate.
This would mean that if someone posts a rage-bait article like “Is Former President OBAMA Stealing Opium Money OUT OF YOUR POCKET?” then maybe people will click it, but the author won’t gain anything out of it.
Yeah how about no? Knowledge should be free, I’m not gonna pay 5c every time I want to open Youtube or some shit. In a utopia you’d pay some small government tax that’d go towards keeping the web ad and paywall free, so the people get happy and the greedy corporate rats get their dirty money.
That assumes either all sites on the web deserve equal compensation for their acts, or some body can decide what the relative value of each is and compensate each creator accordingly. You’d go back to having click farms, but they’d claim the government owes them a billion dollars for their high traffic.
Even the government would usually prefer that citizen money go directly to the systems that they prefer to support, rather than go through taxes to a government program that sponsors them (that’s why you get tax deduction for transit usage and charities). That second route is just needlessly complex.
There’s also better models for payment than microcharges. No one wants to consciously spend 5 cents in an online action. YouTube could require users to be subscribers to view or upload certain forms of content, or each individual creator would integrate some form of Patreon setup. A really simple solution would be to divide someone’s monthly subscription fee based on who they watched most that month.
I think that’s too generalized. Print and written media existed for literally thousands of years before marketing finance.
Touch some grass.
Print and written media existed for literally thousands of years
Uh, no? If by media you mean anything that could remotely considered for the masses then absolutely not. The printing press was so revolutionary because it allowed making multiple copies of written documents without doing them each manually. Reading and writing was so expensive and rare a hobby because the written word was expensive; why would you need to read more than the basic signs if chalk boards were your limit of writing?
“News” before then was word of mouth. Town criers and the like.
My neato.
Guy replies with a hyperbolic shitpost about capitalism.
OP replies sincerely.
I reply hyperbolically in turn.
You assume I’m serious, then assume media can only mean “the mass news media” while ignoring any subtler parallels about access to information and adoption. (e.g. Does reading and writing being expensive relate to the early internet where access and hosting were expensive? Does the evolution of the written word have parallels with the evolution of the internet?)
If I’m responding semi-seriously, I do want to note that it’s only in the American school system where there’s no writing until the west gets paper. Armies of scribes carved into stone, impressed into clay, and wrote onto vellum to blanket empires in written news.
