The emergence of social media has destroyed all the small communities to standardize communication and information.
It’s a bit of a digital version of rural exodus. And since 2017/2018, I’ve noticed that everything that, in my opinion, represented the internet has disappeared.
I’ve known Lemmy for a few hours and I feel like I’m back in the early spirit of the internet.
“Social media” is a really vague term. I think there are broadly 3 categories:
-
Web2.0 social media: facebook, twitter, discord, reddit
-
Forums: Old school web fora, (mastodon & lemmy?)
-
Debateable social media: IRC, email chains/threads
Only the first category is relatively new and has captured the attention of the general public outside of nerds. The other two are either decentralised or are niche centralised sites. IMO it seems like the web 2.0 stuff is most problematic but not sure if it’s the hyper-centralisation or their general popularity that is the issue.
-
The early Internet was social media, but it wasn’t so corporatized to the point of being ruined.
To expand on that, all media with a negligible barrier to entry is social media. Which describes the internet as a whole. The commodification of such media is both unnecessary and parasitic. The only thing “social media” adds is accessibility.
Social media, at it’s heart, is inevitable. We will always find a way to share pictures, information, videos, etc. with each other. It’s such basic functionality when you really think about it. We’re social creatures and this is the most important thing we would do with technology.
The issue is specifically with platforms; how they consolidate power and who owns them.
I don’t know what to do about it, it’s one of the biggest problems we are going to continue to face in our time. I can’t really armchair solutions for it now, but I think it’s of the utmost importance that we recognize it and discuss it.
Social media is not inherently bad, it’s the platforms.
Exactly. The internet was always social, connecting people. Capitalism and greed have ruined the internet.
I don’t care if people want to make money, and I’m even fine with ads (within reason) but all this ExTrAcTiNg VaLuE is making the Internet unusable and damaging humanity.
Not social media. Capitalism.
The internet was ALWAYS social (e.g. telnet). It wasn’t ruined by people using technology to connect, it was ruined by capitalism finding new, insidious ways to monetize the human social drive.
i think the difference is that before the internet was a social mesh of countless websites.
while today it’s just a handful of social media sites.
yhea, it’s capitalism, but social media is the main tool capitalism used.
Yes, but in order to properly learn our lesson to prevent this from happening again, we need to call out the root of the problem instead of/in addition to the tools or symptoms.
i think even without capitalism, social media works better on scale (even federated social media, does so but decentralised). you will join the bigger systems, and those systems are more likely to grow if they are bigger…
they will be much less toxic without capitalism though
The “bigger systems” pre-corporate internet (and somewhat in the transition) were sometimes fairly large forums dedicated to one niche (sometimes multiple, but in the same general field). Once Reddit specifically came along after YouTube/Google laid the groundwork for the corporatization of the Internet, it centralized basically every forum to one website. Now even today, forums still exist, but it’s nowhere near what they once were.
That’s also not to mention sites like Geocities allowing basically everyone to have their own website (which of course, is another version of centralization, but with much more control given to its users).
And it’s not like corporations didn’t try to take control of the internet before 2005/2006. Just look at AOL in the 90s for a prime example, along with Flash, ActiveX/Internet Explorer, Quicktime/Realplayer browser plugins for video, etc.
Without capitalism, we would still see the internet grow, as even in the late 90s, it felt as if you were being left behind in society if you didn’t have an internet connection, but the way in which it grew would look much more akin to how it looked in the 90s and early 2000s.
The internet sure was far from perfect back then, but it was ours’.
I do miss that early internet, it was more discovery and exploration and much less doomscrolling.
and I agree that corporations destroyed it.
i realised that the response StumbleUpon cannot exist nowadays,is because internet is just a handful of sites rather than countless small ones. God StumbleUpon was superior to wherever we have now
This is why I’m finding more and more that it’s easier to find local events the “old fashioned way” (word-of-mouth, flyers, local newspapers and zines, etc) rather than through social media. It used to be easier to see events local to me, but now the algorithm pushes events that I may like but aren’t local at all. Sometimes I do actually see something local, but it’s too late.
Whenever I get overwhelmed by the modern web, I go to http://wiby.me/ and click “surprise me…”
It’s a search engine that only spits out “real” webpages that were made by people like you and me. Very refreshing.
I also like zombocom
Shoutout for https://www.marginalia.nu/ too!
Whoever it is that has kept zombo going for most of my adult life deserves a medal.
You can do ANYthing!
Anything is possible.
Thank you for sharing. It’s painful to realize in hindsight that those websites were peak internet.
They lack polish, but they were all a labour of love. No enshittification, no selling things, no corporate influence, no shit posting.
Everything had a purpose, every post took effort, and it was all about sharing experiences or knowledge.
I really miss that internet.
EDIT: correcting gibberish 🤭
Content > design
If I had a lot of money I would fund the creation of a new search engine. It would operate entirely on a white list model. And every website on it would be reviewed by people, for people. No posts from any social media site would be allowed; only small webpages. To be featured in the engine, sites would have to have verifiable human origins. So personal blogs made by real people or small businesses with actual physical addresses that can be fully verified in the real world. In order to get your business featured, you would have to apply, and someone would physically have to visit you in order to verify your authenticity. Oh, and any website that uses AI in any form would simply be ineligible to appear on the search engine.
Yes, this would result in a drastically reduced pool of potential sites, but what remains would be absolute gold.
I love the idea, but wouldn’t it be one of those old web indices (like a site or book that was just a list of other sites) with a keyword search function? Like a centralized webring with user submissions?
Yeah, I’m basically envisioning something like that. An old school web index composed entirely of human-curated human-made content. How to actually fund such an effort? I have no idea. That’s why I started with the the premise that I somehow had millions to throw at the project. It would invariably be very labor intensive.
It would probably have to be subscription funded. Maybe there’s a way to pull it off, but getting people to pay for subscriptions for services like this has long been fraught. Surveillance capitalism was built because donations don’t cut it, and no one wanted to spend a few bucks a month for Google or Facebook access.
Needs moar webrings.
https://neocities.org/ is great too
Saved, thanks for sharing. I just learned how geologists date rocks 😎
3rd one is obsolete now and has been replaced with affection
No, not the only one -
The internet is just a microcosm of social media’s destruction of our entire social fabric
Social media is the front of the house.
What destroyed the internet are the cabal of Corporations monetizing every interaction and directing flows from the back of the house.
Unfettered Capitalism killed the internet experience.
It’s not social media per se. It’s capitalism. The Internet was this vast frontier, where you could meet anyone. Little communities formed, we all just talked, and self-regulated any bad behavior. It was a gift economy, we all freely shared knowledge, files, culture.
In the past 20 or so years, economies of scale took over. Corporations bought up the server space and aggressively shut down small communities. Community is discouraged, keep scrolling and click on the ads! Marketing killed the internet.
Came here to say exactly this. Capitalism breeds consumerism - and consumerism destroys everything.
I predicted back in 2000 that the net would become a big complex system of cable channels, you pay for every site you visit. It’s sure AF going that way.
Something wonderful is gone forever. Thanks America.
The internet has always been a collection of social media platforms: bulletin boards, Usenet, IRC, people hosting little personal sites and making contact with each other via email, etc. It got bad when big money arrived and brought in the general public. First is was platforms like AOL’s chat rooms and forums, and later things like Facebook and Twitter. We are all living in eternal September now.
Exhibit A: this t-shirt from 1994
What was the state of the internet in 1994 that it would cause such resentiment?
“A cultural phenomenon during a period beginning around late 1993 and early 1994, when Internet service providers began offering Usenet access to many new users.”
"The flood of new and generally inexperienced Internet users directed to Usenet by commercial ISPs in 1993 and subsequent years swamped the existing culture of those forums and their ability to self-moderate and enforce existing norms. AOL began their Usenet gateway service in March 1994, leading to a constant stream of new users.
Hence, from the early Usenet community point of view, the influx of new users that began in September 1993 appeared to be endless."
I think that you left out the part that explains why it’s called September. Every year, when first-year university students got their hands on the internet for the first time, they would rampage through the noble message boards with their barbarian netiquetteless ways. Many dreaded the annual influx of newbies, and their worst nightmares were finally realized when the internet was opened up to the greater public.
My reflection on that period would lead me to suggest it was the mass “normie” invasion of nerd-space and the promotion of low-effort participation. I don’t remember anything specific about that particular timeframe, though.
The internet was better when it wasn’t big enough to be worth monetizing. And the signal to noise ratio has generally grown exponentially with participation. Which makes sense if you think about it.
My reflection on that period would lead me to suggest it was the mass “normie” invasion of nerd-space and the promotion of low-effort participation. I don’t remember anything specific about that particular timeframe, though.
So ultimately the sentiment has never changed?
Eternal September refers to September 1993, when a popular internet service provider (AOL) provided easy access to Usenet for its users, which immediately threatened the existing culture and lowered the quality of discourse.
Before this, September was only a temporary problem as a new batch of college freshman would arrive and be unaccustomed to the place.
94 was when it really took off and the hoi polloi started tuning in.
https://ourworldindata.org/internet
Be easy to make an argument for a few years later, but 1994 has always stuck in my mind as the take off point. By then there were “information superhighway” items all over the news, everybody got AOL disks, Windows 95 was right around the corner to take the pain out of PCs, stuff like that. That’s the year I’d point to and say the internet was no longer a nerd thing.
1994: I was still fiddling with a 286 (WITH a math coproccesor I installed!), way beyond my skills at the time. LOL, my gf and I had to drive across town a beg a local IBM guy to give us a copy of the BIOS on a floopy when ours crash. He acted like Neo giving Choi the disk, “Yeah, I know. This never happened. You don’t exist.”
The nerds got their wish granted in the most monkeys-paw way possible. For 20 years or so, computer nerds were trying to tell everyone about the internet. They saw the potential and what it could be. They were early adopters, and they wished that everyone could appreciate this wonderful thing they had discovered or helped invent.
Well, they got their wish…
Its not so much social media that ruined it, as capitalism and centralization.
Forums themselves are a form of social media, and they’re (mostly) great. For Reddit and Lemmy, debatably the best part is the social elements, like the comments sections. The problem isn’t the interaction or the “social” nature of it. Its that these platforms have turned into psudo-monopolies intent on controlling people and/or wringing them for every penny.
Thats not to say toxicity and capitalistic exploitation didn’t exist before either. The term “flame war” is older than a lot of adults today. Unlike today though, platforms were both more decentralized meaning they were easier to manage and users could switch platform, and were less alorithmic meaning that users could more easily avoid large, bad-faith actors. You’ll notice the Fediverse have both these qualities, which is part of why its done so well.
IMO, the best fix to this, would be twofold. A) break up the big monopolies and possibly the psudo-monopolies. Monopolies bad, simple enough. B) Much more difficult, but I believe that what content a site promotes, including algorithmically, should be regulated. Thats not to say sorting algorithms should be banned, but I think we need to regulate how they’re used and implemented. For example, regulations could include things like requiring alternative algorithms be offered to users, banning “black box” algorithms, requiring the algorithns be publicly published, and/or banning algorithms that change based on an individual’s engagement. Ideally, this would give the user more agency over their experience and would reduce the odds of ignorant users being pushed into cult-like rabbit-holes.
It’s not social media that did it. It’s monopolistic, unregulated, greedy, giant tech corporations that made the internet shitty.
Exactly, early social media was tons of fun. It was like the early internet but easier since anyone could make a profile with any info.
Then it had to be monetized. They had to glue eyeballs via attention, no matter what kind. Now it’s all rent seeking, innovation is 100% about what can produce an immediate return, no care for the long term. The grift economy…
It was not social media, that was about the people. It’s what the social media companies did in search of dollars that did it in. Greed. Full stop.
Community has been replaced by the trough.
Is that an Animal Farm quote?
Not the only one, but it’s the walled garden platform approach.
The idea (from around 2010ish) was that every platform is an app and every app is everything. A company buys up other smaller companies until you have a payment system, a marketplace, a VOIP system, advertising, job posting boards, 4 different waya to share media, etc. etc.
While the tech world sold this as, and actually viewed this as, some organic online super village, it wasn’t. It was a series of shit stripmalls adjacent to a Walmart in a shitberg town on a big freeway linking other shiberg towns with Walmarts. Sterile, restrictive, one size fits all dipshits kind of garbage. There’s a kind of person that thrives in the parking lots of Walmarts and stripmalls in shitberg towns, and they thrive on social media, too.
Lemmy reminds me more of early internet as well, but also refined by the common language of those platforms as a common starting point. It’s a niche, and it’s not for everyone. But it is for you, welcome.
There’s a kind of person that thrives in the parking lots of Walmarts and stripmalls in shitberg towns, and they thrive on social media, too.
Well put. I’m old school Tripod days (if anyone remembers what that was). I’ve seen social media go from “A/S/L?” to “like & subscribe” and everything in between. It was never that clean, and the lot lizards were always lurking.
The idea (from around 2010ish) was that every platform is an app and every app is everything. A company buys up other smaller companies until you have a payment system, a marketplace, a VOIP system, advertising, job posting boards, 4 different waya to share media, etc. etc.
You’re describing AOL. This is nothing new. And just as AOL failed and faded, so will the social media giants.
I understand what you’re saying, but AOL had the opposite problem. The internet at that time was hard to use in general, so it was more about trying to provide enough of anything to get commercial viability for regular people. At one point, AOL was 30% of the entire internet. Seriously, it hosted almost a third of everything online. The alternatives were CompuServe or Prodigy or simply not being online at all. But you paid for it up front as an ISP. AOL didn’t provide anything for free up front.
The Web 2.0 walled garden approach is about preventing you from wandering out onto the wide open spaces of the rest of the internet out there and not seeing the content curated to make the platform provider money. And making the 10% of daily internet content composed of idiotic FB comments and posts seem like it’s worth all your time when you can easily use one of 5 or 6 search engines to find alternative content. Making staying in the garden so cost effective and frictionless that even using a search engine seems “hard” to do.
You’re not alone at all. The old Internet died the day Facebook became the dominant social media app and gave the corpo their first real foothold into the digital sphere since the Dot Com Bust. It’s not a space for free expression and information sharing anymore. Now it’s all fucking ads, slop, and grifting.
I feel like it’s a mix of quite a few things, social media is DEFINITELY a big part of the problem but the monetisation of EVERYTHING is the main problem.
When the Internet was becoming more mainstream around the world (late 90s) most people who put content on there didn’t do it for money, they did it just to share knowledge/thoughts or just be part of a small niche community.
This meant while there was less content it was more meaningful, and it got to the point quickly as it didn’t need to show you ads etc.
Recipie sites show this perfectly, people used to just post family recipes in cooking forums, now it’s all personal blogs riddled with ads splattered between the person’s life story and multiple requests to subscribe to related guff.
Ultimately the goal of the Internet shifted from “sharing knowledge/communicating” to “show as many ads as possible”. This makes 90% of each site filler to stop you getting to the 10% too quickly, so you get snagged on ads etc.
This is why AI is great for companies, they can put in the important 10% and have it make up the 90%, but it’s just adding more noise to the Internet.
Also pair this problem with search engines that now take advantage of the noise to provide “summary” blurbs which mean you don’t even visit the sites directly so they don’t get the revenue, the search engines do, I think there is a term for this “one click results” or something.
Its such a shame, I loved the Internet from like 1995-2005, you could search for something and get really good information and facts on the subject quickly. Now the same sort of things are lost amongst the filler sites that just aggregate information and regurgitate it as their own, or just out uninformed opinions (maybe even AI results) as content as if it’s from experts etc.
I could go on for ages on the subject as there are so many facets to the problem but I can’t see any real solutions, it’s just a midden heap.
So I will preface my comment with the fact that I hate Internet ads and do everything within my power to block and/or avoid them. Aside from being annoying they’re a blatant security and malware risk, and I avoid them for that reason alone.
That being said, hosting websites gets pretty expensive pretty fast when lots of people come to your site, especially with the advent of much higher bandwidth media that goes along with better quality images and video.
In my opinion the fact that the majority of people just have an expectation that everything online should be free is THE problem. I was there when the Internet was free and open and without ads. That was the culture, and the root of the issue we have today is that that culture is the foundation of the general expectation that it should continue to be so.
But that’s not sustainable with the costs involved in hosting today. Shit costs money yo, why should other people bear that so you can search for recipes for free without it being annoying for you?
The fact that nobody is willing to pay for content via subscriptions or paid apps is literally why the ad-based model is the overwhelming majority of the Internet, and apps, and why data collection/sales is so rampant.
Web development and running a webpage is not easy. Even for those that are skilled enough that it’s easy for them, it takes a ton of time. Usually multiple people’s time for any site with enough visitors to make it a good site. App development is hard and takes a skill set that requires a lot of training or time investment to learn. Why should all that go for free for you?
Until people are willing to pay for content they find valuable the Internet will be a hell hole ridden with ads. YouTube ads are awful, but do you have any idea how much it costs to run YouTube? You think someone should just absorb that out of the goodness of their hearts? Ridiculous.
The goal of the Internet is still to share information and communicate, but all the hardware and bandwidth and time costs real dollars, and the only way for most sites to recoup that is via ads because people just won’t pay anything if given an option, they’ll just go to another site that has free content, because there’s SO MUCH stuff that you can generally find what you want, for free with ads, somewhere else.
There’s only two possible solutions that I see:
-
everyone starts being willing to pay for content they find valuable. I don’t see this happening. There’s too many people that share your opinion without taking into account what it costs to actually run a modern website.
-
some complicated type of system that directly pays websites for use, based off of usage from people. I think this is almost too complicated to implement that it’s likely impossible with today’s Internet. If we want to also maintain privacy/anonymity when surfing I can’t see how this can ever work - so unless we have some future system where people are uniquely identifiable on the Internet, and then some additional system that somehow “fairly” compensates websites for traffic from users, this won’t happen. It would need to involve ISPs, their customers, and web site owners in some coordinated payment system to work.
Not to sound too preachy but to me your comment comes off as super entitled.
I pay for apps that I think are valuable, even ones with no cost like Signal. Because I value what they provide. I subscribe to sites that I find valuable enough to do so when it’s an option. I abhor data collection and ads and I fight them without prejudice. But even I don’t think I pay enough directly to offset how much I cost providers, I’m sure I don’t, but that’s mostly laziness because it’s a pain to pay every site directly so I donate to the ones I really appreciate and use heavily. If I could pay my ISP for my link and then have a direct credit system that throws dollars and cents directly into website coffers as I use them, that would be great - but I don’t want to give up my privacy either, so… Yeah.
Long story short, ad-based content is going nowhere until there’s a fundamental shift in either people or how the Internet operates.
The Internet used to operate fine before this ad riddled slop was spoon fed to us.
I’m pretty sure back in the day you would get some ads on geocities sites and other free Web hosts, and it was fine, I don’t expect ads to vanish, you are making out like it’s an all or nothing proposition.
The paradigms for “content” is all wrong now, rather than the ads being needed to fund the content, the content is produced as a way to keep eyes on ads.
There are literally design/ux guides around how to best waste a users time to get more ads shown without getting them to leave, click bait shouldn’t even be a thing.
Now you can say “this is why we need to support people so they don’t need to do this”, but I don’t feel they do NEED to, they choose to do this as it maximises income, but why do you need to get paid for every thing you do?
Its like people used to Stream and make YT vids because they enjoyed it, uploading new vids whenever there was a reason to, not because some algorithm required it.
I’m not against people making a living from YT or streaming, or even the Internet, but there is a difference between someone who enjoyed doing something and made it big vs people who just want to make money and YT is the vehicle for it.
Too much of society is focused on money.
The Internet used to feel like a university with clever people sharing knowledge and discussing all manner of topics, with some fun student bars to hang out and chat.
Now it feels like a noisy bazzar full of pick pocketers and stall vendors with fake smiles yelling at you to support them and buy their merch (and or their sponsors).
Its a cess pit.
You’ve never run a website or a server have you. Servers today cost almost nothing. You can get a high quality virtual private server for $4/month or run it in a closet at your house for free on an old laptop. That can handle thousands of simultaneous website visitors for everything except a huge video streaming service. A recipe site would cost absolutely nothing out of pocket. You are seriously overestimating the costs of these things because the big tech companies propagandize the public. But you may notice that none of the big publicly traded tech companies actually ever say how much they spend on servers specifically - because they don’t want the public to know how low the number is. Except for Wikipedia that is: out of >$100M in annual spending, <2% gets spent on hosting costs.
Web development and running a webpage is not easy.
It was easy enough in the late 90s for millions of teenagers to figure it out and make their own web pages and easy enough for millions more to get their MySpace page to sparkle. You are over estimating how hard this stuff is. It’s not hard as evidenced by how many people in the last generation successfully did it.
The overall problem with your post is how often you refer to things online as “content”. It never used to be “content”. They just shared their writing, their opinion, their art. There is still a desire to do that! But years ago readers found things via a “web” which was free (clicking links is free) but today they find things via private algorithms which inject ads. That’s what went wrong.
This is a fundamentally flawed take on this issue, internet is NOT a product, it is a platform where product (content) is hosted, or a platform where other platform is hosted which in turn hosts other products (content).
When was the last time you saw an ad for McDonald’s Big Mac™ or LFS Aquarium’s hang in the back fish tank pump on Steam? You don’t.
That’s because there are infinitely many different ways to run a business on the internet, and as a platform the internet does not inherently require you to go one specific way or the other. Yet they chose mass ads and search engine manipulation that augment mass ads because it is the most cost effective way to maximize profit at the detriment of the entire ecosystem.
The culture that on the internet you do not expect to make direct monetary transactions, in order to have access to anything on the internet at all is NOT the problem, rather the problem is a culture of endlessly and infinitely maximizing profit no matter what it takes. And this culture had a chance to lead to wide scale actions that are fundamentally ditremental to the entire internet because the internet was made into a capitalism heaven with practically no regulations at all, the only thing that keeps capitalism in check.
I have a little bit of that frustration with people not wanting to subscribe / donate to things, but I think there’s a very reasonable cause for that: Income disparity.
In the end, be it video game design building towards F2P live services or TV being terrible slop, a lot of it boils down to that issue: So much of your audience has so little to give. In a functioning economy, the money would cycle around a little more.
-
The small communities are still there, you just don’t visit them because you are on social media (like lemmy). Forums are still there. IRC is still there. Hell, even BBS and Usenet is still there if you really want to go that way.
What is UseNet ?
Internet history. An old protocol originally for discussion, nowadays also to sail the seven seas, if you know what I mean. It predates the web by more than a decade.
Also you could go to a niche technical forum and find some of the planet’s bes specialists of the material. For computing, you’d often see the people that built everything (from software to hardware). It was truly a world forum at a level that things like Twitter never got close to.
Yeah but honestly who uses Usenet anymore if not to download binaries.
Approximately the same amount of people as 30 years ago. It’s only that now they are a tiny part of the internet, dwarved by TikTok and Facebook.
I would not consider Lemmy social media. Forums are few and far between, IRC is barely still kicking and Usenet (as it was) simply doesn’t exist.
I was curious about Usenet awhile ago, was it still linked computers mirroring information like the old days? No, it more or less simply linked usenet providers at this point.
IRC is as active as it has always been. It was never a high throughput system, you can barely keep track of more than 5 people talking.
Forums are still kicking as well, you have car owner forums for basically any make and model, Hobby Forums, specialist Forums (house building kitchen or gardening just to name a few I consulted recently).
Yeah, they don’t have the scale of Facebook, they never had.
And lemmy, reddit, Mastodon and Co are very much social media. What are they if not?
Lemmy isn’t social. It’s just forums aggregated. One could use it as a social app, and some people do, but it really is not necessary or even really welcomed.
I have seen estimates of a reduction of 50 to 75 percent in the number of forums over the last 15 years. There are certainly a lot less. People go to reddit or discord these days.
Same with IRC but the decline is even higher.
I’d love to see the methodology for those estimates, because I see more every year, not less. IRC stays flat.
Go look at the major irc chat hosts. Add up daily users. Then compare that number to the estimated users in 2005-10.
They are similar.
Well no they are not. Netsplit follows IRC and tracks users and IRC servers. You can watch the decline over time. Quakenet alone had nearly 200,000 monthly active user alone back in 2005.
The split of freenode, the technical abilities of people, and the lack of a easy to use mobile client all made people turn away from IRC. Factor in discord and Reddit and you lose even more.
The number of servers from 2005 to today has dropped also. From 3500 to about a thousand.
I love IRC, but it has been on a decline for a long time. Particularly if you factor in the number of online users today versus back then in general. The percentage of them that uses IRC or even knows what it is, is much smaller.
I suppose you could argue that unpublished networks, onion sites, and other IRC outside of mainstream exist, but how many users do they have?
