We Finally Have Proof That the Internet Is Worse(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
We Finally Have Proof That the Internet Is Worse
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/10/big-tech-algorithmic-influence-antitrust-litigation/675575/
9 comments
> youtube is still interesting
I find way more interesting stuff in youtube today than 10 years ago. Maybe it is more that you changed rather than youtube changed?
I find way more interesting stuff in youtube today than 10 years ago. Maybe it is more that you changed rather than youtube changed?
Yeah. YouTube’s algorithm strongly pushes that you recently watched, along with a sprinkle of rage bait. If the dude is getting videos of people dancing, they watched videos of people dancing. For generally innocuous stuff, it tries to get you on binges.
It’s YouTube’s rage bait that is extremely annoying as even one video can take over your entire recommended.
I watched ONE single half of a video of that drunken reviewer who’s actually just a massive bigot and pushes a lot of misogyny in particular, and it took like 14 months of blocking and “do not recommend” for the rage bait to stop being the primary piece of recommended, though I still get the odd “here’s why women are trash and belong in the kitchen, not working” video.
It’s YouTube’s rage bait that is extremely annoying as even one video can take over your entire recommended.
I watched ONE single half of a video of that drunken reviewer who’s actually just a massive bigot and pushes a lot of misogyny in particular, and it took like 14 months of blocking and “do not recommend” for the rage bait to stop being the primary piece of recommended, though I still get the odd “here’s why women are trash and belong in the kitchen, not working” video.
As a premiim subscriber, this is one of the main reasons I still use Private mode to watch YouTube videos I'm not sure of. Don't want it to pollute my history.
As a result I mostly get recommended great stuff on when watching signed in.
As a result I mostly get recommended great stuff on when watching signed in.
I think it still helps if you remove it from Watch History. And the "Not interested" and "Don't recommend channel" can help, if nothing else, to feel like you're doing something.
People used to make webpages because they were driven by interest in a topic. Now they make listicles to eke out SEM traffic for little trickles of ad or affiliate revenue.
I know that it's only one of your examples, but I have never seen speech censored on Discord.
That's kind of the point of censoring things
I'm on 100 servers (the free maximum) and I've gotten several notifications like "Server XYZ has been deleted for violating our community guidelines."
The youtube search is generally terrible. I've noticed the pattern is 5-10 videos directly related from my query, a band of shorts (which I am now unable to even close "for 30 days" anymore), followed immediately by "other content you may enjoy". It's completely killed a platform I used to go to for rather niche content. It's impossible to look for anything philosophy or psychology related without being inundated with Jordan Peterson grift videos thanks to their view count.
They recently broke YouTube search even more. Go to a channel and do a search within that channel using the search field that is on the far right of the options below the channel information. You may have to click the ">" on the right to make it visible.
What is supposed to happen when you search using that is that it shows you just results for that channel. It still does that for some searches, but for other searches it seems to be doing a normal site wide search.
Whether or not a given search term works correctly seems to be a function of the search term, not a function of the channel being searched.
For example, let's say you are on a channel that reviews movies, and you want to see if they have reviews of some family friendly animated moves.
Search for "zootopia", "trolls", "cars", "coco", "dragon", "stitch", or "panda" and it gives just results from that channel, or tells you the channel has no matching content.
Search for "luca", "soul", "moana", "puss", "megamind", "ratatouille", "rio", "croods", or "lilo" and you get site wide results.
For multi-word searches order matters: "lilo & stitch" gives site wide results and "stitch & lilo" gives results for the channel so it is not the case that certain words trigger the problem.
I assume this is a bug, since I can't see any connection between the words that break out of channel search. They were all movies in my examples, but similar things happen with words from other categories. Example: "soprano", "tenor", "countertenor", "mezzo-soprano", and "bass-baritone" work correctly, and "baritone", "alto", "base", and "contralto" do not.
What is supposed to happen when you search using that is that it shows you just results for that channel. It still does that for some searches, but for other searches it seems to be doing a normal site wide search.
Whether or not a given search term works correctly seems to be a function of the search term, not a function of the channel being searched.
For example, let's say you are on a channel that reviews movies, and you want to see if they have reviews of some family friendly animated moves.
Search for "zootopia", "trolls", "cars", "coco", "dragon", "stitch", or "panda" and it gives just results from that channel, or tells you the channel has no matching content.
Search for "luca", "soul", "moana", "puss", "megamind", "ratatouille", "rio", "croods", or "lilo" and you get site wide results.
For multi-word searches order matters: "lilo & stitch" gives site wide results and "stitch & lilo" gives results for the channel so it is not the case that certain words trigger the problem.
I assume this is a bug, since I can't see any connection between the words that break out of channel search. They were all movies in my examples, but similar things happen with words from other categories. Example: "soprano", "tenor", "countertenor", "mezzo-soprano", and "bass-baritone" work correctly, and "baritone", "alto", "base", and "contralto" do not.
Wait! There's less!
The link to Megan Gray's article goes here:
https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-...
EDITOR’S NOTE 10/6/2023: After careful review of the op-ed, "How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet," and relevant material provided to us following its publication, WIRED editorial leadership has determined that the story does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed.
Wayback says:
Hrm.
Wayback Machine has not archived that URL. Click here to search for all archived pages under https://archive.md/o/6zvqS/https://www.wired.com/story/googl...
(nada)
Welcome to the enshittified internet.
The link to Megan Gray's article goes here:
https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-...
EDITOR’S NOTE 10/6/2023: After careful review of the op-ed, "How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet," and relevant material provided to us following its publication, WIRED editorial leadership has determined that the story does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed.
Wayback says:
Hrm.
Wayback Machine has not archived that URL. Click here to search for all archived pages under https://archive.md/o/6zvqS/https://www.wired.com/story/googl...
(nada)
Welcome to the enshittified internet.
[deleted]
Sorry for off-topic but does anyone else find that for some reason archive.* addresses occasionally refuse to resolve only on Comcast? If I switch to mobile data it resolves.
Have you tried swapping your DNS server? 1.1.1.1 = cloudflare, 9.9.9.9 = quad9, 216.87.84.211 = open NIC.
Undoubtedly, Comcast is handing you a DNS server different from your mobile.
On the desktop, archive.* just failed when I am using iCloud Private Relay. Mobile works with the same setting. (wi-fi and wireless only) With ICPR, you can choose country+timezone or general location.
Just another thing to check. May not apply to you.
On the desktop, archive.* just failed when I am using iCloud Private Relay. Mobile works with the same setting. (wi-fi and wireless only) With ICPR, you can choose country+timezone or general location.
Just another thing to check. May not apply to you.
archive.* DNS doesn't work with cloudfare's 1.1.1.1 for ... reasons. Perhaps it's related.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317
[deleted]
Innocent until proven guilty. Unless it drives clicks and increases revenue.
As much as I'd like to jump on this bandwagon. It's above my pay grade.
As much as I'd like to jump on this bandwagon. It's above my pay grade.
For YouTubers you are guilty until you prove innocent. It is funny that there are different rules for creators on platforms and platforms themselves. Imagine if google was not to be able to monetize anything until it proves innocence.
Companies and people deserve “due process”, when it comes to prosecution in a courtroom. However, unlike the government, we don't have the power to put someone in jail, or extract a fine. So we can decide given the available information if a company or person is acting badly and act accordingly.
that applies to criminal trials. Not civil ones.
[deleted]
Darkly ironic that this article is paywalled
Also, they rap on the Internet when they really mean World Wide Web. The Internet is fantastic. The Web has never been worse.
For all but the most dedicated pedants, those terms are synonymous.
For most normies "internet" is synonymous with their favorite social media site and maybe Google. I've been talking to quite a few Zoomers lately about the Internet. Not a single one of them knew what the WWW was. They though it was basically something Google made.
The important social media apps (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and to a lesser degree Twitter) are barely part of the Web. They mostly treat the WWW as a minor traffic acquisition platform.
The important social media apps (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and to a lesser degree Twitter) are barely part of the Web. They mostly treat the WWW as a minor traffic acquisition platform.
Reddit is in that list and I have to imagine a lot of their traffic is still WWW
If you'll forgive my quoting xkcd,
> but as I see it "pedantic" is just a euphemism for "correct in a way I don't like".
And this is HN; if you want to use words incorrectly and not get called on it, this is a bad place to post.
> but as I see it "pedantic" is just a euphemism for "correct in a way I don't like".
And this is HN; if you want to use words incorrectly and not get called on it, this is a bad place to post.
standingovation.gif
I think more paywalls is actually going to make internet better.
How will frustrating users make it better?
Of course things need to be paid for, but throwing up a giant stop sign is maybe the worst possible user experience. The web needs a native value transfer mechanism, but so far all efforts have failed.
Of course things need to be paid for, but throwing up a giant stop sign is maybe the worst possible user experience. The web needs a native value transfer mechanism, but so far all efforts have failed.
Free web incentivises people to compete for viewers, whereas a paid web you need a reasonable expectation the content is quality.
I didn't read beyond the paywall, and that's okay. I subscribe to other things and if I see enough enticing high quality content from someone I might pay.
It's the folks like me, using an adblocker, that have been getting the good deal in a time with fewer paywalls.
I didn't read beyond the paywall, and that's okay. I subscribe to other things and if I see enough enticing high quality content from someone I might pay.
It's the folks like me, using an adblocker, that have been getting the good deal in a time with fewer paywalls.
From what I've noticed, paywalled sites are echo chambers to whatever audience the site is catering to.
The Atlantic does release full articles under RSS which I greatly appreciate. (instead of 1st paragraph as most paywalled news)
[deleted]
With paywalls, for example ...
With captchas, for example.
I think this reflective attitude is actually part of the root cause of how we got into this mess. Google was able to bootstrap off the entire "open internet" and "information wants to be free" mindset, without ever really solving the dilemma of "information wants to be free, but time, electricity and bandwidth isn't". Or "information wants to be free, but what if someone wants to make a living synthesizing and peddling new information?".
Instead we ended up with all of our costs being hidden away and borne through advertisement, or other indirect forms of bundling. No ordinary person knows the value or cost of what their interacting with in these "free interactions", or even the value of their interactions. This gives all of the incentives and cover required for fresh bullshit to happen.
I'd actually argue that despite all the downsides of paywalls, paywalls are at least in principle up front with what's happening. Incentives and costs are clear.
In other words, I'd argue that Google (especially) has managed to doubly exploit our love of "free". Obviously the ordinary person loves free, but Google was also able to for a long time to also coast off and exploit enormous amounts of good-will amongst the professional developer ranks by aligning itself with "information wants to be free".
Instead we ended up with all of our costs being hidden away and borne through advertisement, or other indirect forms of bundling. No ordinary person knows the value or cost of what their interacting with in these "free interactions", or even the value of their interactions. This gives all of the incentives and cover required for fresh bullshit to happen.
I'd actually argue that despite all the downsides of paywalls, paywalls are at least in principle up front with what's happening. Incentives and costs are clear.
In other words, I'd argue that Google (especially) has managed to doubly exploit our love of "free". Obviously the ordinary person loves free, but Google was also able to for a long time to also coast off and exploit enormous amounts of good-will amongst the professional developer ranks by aligning itself with "information wants to be free".
> I'd actually argue that despite all the downsides of paywalls, paywalls are at least in principle up front with what's happening. Incentives and costs are clear.
There are also working people behind the articles we read that have to put food on the table, how are they to be remunerated?
There are also working people behind the articles we read that have to put food on the table, how are they to be remunerated?
Those paywalls don't save you from any tracking, it's just more bad on top of bad.
That's fair, especially as they exist today.
I'd argue that an internet where paying for stuff was normalized would greatly reduce the need for tracking, and therefore the amount of pushback against any type of regulation.
I'd argue that an internet where paying for stuff was normalized would greatly reduce the need for tracking, and therefore the amount of pushback against any type of regulation.
[deleted]
Sincere question for the people who think paywalls are bad: How are journalists and writers to be paid?
There's more to it, because plenty of journalists and writers get paid without a paywall, but that's because some vastly wealthy person or corporation is using them to create and spread propaganda. Fox News will always be free, that's the point.
This disdain for paying for things disproportionately advantages propagandists who aren't in the business to make a profit, and undercuts outsiders who want to genuinely dive into long-form, investigative pieces.
This disdain for paying for things disproportionately advantages propagandists who aren't in the business to make a profit, and undercuts outsiders who want to genuinely dive into long-form, investigative pieces.
> Fox News will always be free, that's the point.
As will CNN, MSNBC, etc. Your (un?)intentional omission of left-leaning sites, ironically, reads like propaganda.
As will CNN, MSNBC, etc. Your (un?)intentional omission of left-leaning sites, ironically, reads like propaganda.
[deleted]
10 years ago: find anything using google, youtube is still interesting, few AI generated content, lots of communities
Today: Never thought I'd switch to fu*ing Yandex of everything, Youtube ignores my search queries and instead shows me shorts of people dancing, every article accessible via Google is censored or AI written or sells me something, no forums and you have to be on facebook and discord and telegram and reddit to read on anything and since those are big platformes speech is heavily censored and you get left with that void for more/opposing view or with cognitive dissonance, everyone is trying to convert you into buying something or viewing ads.