The World Wide Web is Moving to AOL(brianbailey.me)
brianbailey.me
The World Wide Web is Moving to AOL
http://brianbailey.me/the-world-wide-web-is-moving-to-aol
13 comments
The paradox is, platforms like Facebook never could arise without the free internet for people to rapidly prototype, evolve, pivot and merge ideas. Hopefully, having a free (as in, non corporate controlled) internet will come to be seen as an important economic differentiator. I would argue that economic success* for a country in the 21st century and beyond is largely going to hinge on it having an open internet ecosystem.
* = unless we trash the natural ecosystem, of course, in which case all bets are off
* = unless we trash the natural ecosystem, of course, in which case all bets are off
>The paradox is, platforms like Facebook never could arise without the free internet for people to rapidly prototype, evolve, pivot and merge ideas.
I think that's not really a paradox but orthogonal.
For one, successful platforms have risen in closed ecosystems too. E.g the TV networks of yore were very closed ecosystems, but several forms and platforms emerged in them.
Second, the creation destroying the environment that created it is not really a paradox. It's one way to assure no such new creation threatens it. And it's the essence of stories like Frankenstein etc.
I think that's not really a paradox but orthogonal.
For one, successful platforms have risen in closed ecosystems too. E.g the TV networks of yore were very closed ecosystems, but several forms and platforms emerged in them.
Second, the creation destroying the environment that created it is not really a paradox. It's one way to assure no such new creation threatens it. And it's the essence of stories like Frankenstein etc.
The essence of Frankenstein was about human nature. Specifically that we hate ugly things and love beautiful things even when the beautiful are evil and the ugly kind [1]. The only reason the creation wanted to destroy the creator was that the creation had no place in this world and was denied even a small amount of peace by the creator that condemned it to existence.
[1] When the beautiful doctor started working with dead bodies and so on, it was a "phase" he was going through. Not a bad person at all. When the monster saved a man's daughter from drowning he was shot for his trouble because something so ugly could only be evil.
[1] When the beautiful doctor started working with dead bodies and so on, it was a "phase" he was going through. Not a bad person at all. When the monster saved a man's daughter from drowning he was shot for his trouble because something so ugly could only be evil.
Thank you for pointing out the common misunderstanding of the Frankenstein story.
It bugs me almost as much as all of the "Before Colombus, people thought the world was flat." repetition.
It bugs me almost as much as all of the "Before Colombus, people thought the world was flat." repetition.
Indeed. Actually I was thinking as I wrote it about how any monopoly is essentially trying to extinguish the fertile ground that it first sprung from.
What word would fit instead - would 'ironic' be any less controversial?
What word would fit instead - would 'ironic' be any less controversial?
> Hopefully, having a free (as in, non corporate controlled) internet will come to be seen as an important economic differentiator
Sorry to break it to you, but the internet is very corporate controlled. Its bits flow over the private networks of Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc. It's just that so far, these companies have not exercised the extent of their control.
Sorry to break it to you, but the internet is very corporate controlled. Its bits flow over the private networks of Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc. It's just that so far, these companies have not exercised the extent of their control.
And your car is powered by corporate gasoline. And Tim Berners-Lee was using a corporate NeXT box. There is still a degree of freedom that Internet provides, and it's our duty to keep it at the same level or greater.
They would love to, but they know that wouldn't work. Those companies (and many others in many different countries) control some of the possible mediums on top of which the Internet can sit. The Internet is a concept, not a bunch of cables and hardware, and that's what makes it so resilient. People would find a way.
Government controlled actually, as AT&T and Verizon are government protected monopolies. Much like the largest banks, they're merely an arm of the US Government pretending to be private.
And then when you examine eg China (arguably the largest Internet market), it too is completely government controlled.
And then when you examine eg China (arguably the largest Internet market), it too is completely government controlled.
This comment is a great example of what I call 'cynical/naive'. You're trying to be cynical but putting forward such a naive, simplified view of the interrelationships between those companies, the relevant regulatory bodies, legislators, local/state governments, lobbyists, market competition and lack thereof, steak dinners and whatever.
The tier 3 internet business of these corps is different from the consumer internet business. The consumer internet business's legal monopolies aren't so much an arm of a big federal government as they are completely dominant over thousands of very small local governments, where $50k of local access TV funding will buy you exclusivity because those governments have been squeezed for funding for the last 10 years.
It's also not really comparable to the way things work in China, except insofar as 'corruption and imperfections exist' in both cases.
The tier 3 internet business of these corps is different from the consumer internet business. The consumer internet business's legal monopolies aren't so much an arm of a big federal government as they are completely dominant over thousands of very small local governments, where $50k of local access TV funding will buy you exclusivity because those governments have been squeezed for funding for the last 10 years.
It's also not really comparable to the way things work in China, except insofar as 'corruption and imperfections exist' in both cases.
Additionally many people share links (funny and otherwise) through Facebook. You can break out of Facebook by clicking on a link someone posts/
Part of the benefit of Facebook is that it's on the WWW.
Part of the benefit of Facebook is that it's on the WWW.
Sure but a few problems with that:
a) WARNING you are leaving safety, are you sure you want to go out into the DANGEROUS Internet? Your friends will miss you! How about some Soma instead? b) Censorship c) They have the power to turn off hyperlinks at any time--like YouTube has already done.
a) WARNING you are leaving safety, are you sure you want to go out into the DANGEROUS Internet? Your friends will miss you! How about some Soma instead? b) Censorship c) They have the power to turn off hyperlinks at any time--like YouTube has already done.
Is that really a symptom of Facebook deliberately trying to wall its users in, or just that the the majority of its userbase really would get phished/infected/anally-probed without the warnings?
Then again .. I didn't know YouTube did that ..
Then again .. I didn't know YouTube did that ..
Organic social shares drive real traffic, but everything I've spent on fb ads has been a complete loss and grossly underperformed all other internet mediums that I've tested.
Someone needs to get the goal posts moving over there...or wait, we have another newsfeed update for better photos --ads.
Someone needs to get the goal posts moving over there...or wait, we have another newsfeed update for better photos --ads.
"platforms like Facebook never could arise without the free internet"
Word.
Word.
>So while this blog post makes a great point, it feels like it's trying to convince the sun not to rise tomorrow - nothing we do will stop platforms such as Facebook rising if they offer what people want/need. We would need to make a better version, and that isn't always feasible.
Well that's the thing with democracy and freedom in general.
It's not enough to vote. You have to be vigilant, and you have to be a political (as opposed to private) person.
That a platform like Facebook can swallow the internet if it "offers people what the want/need", means that people are not democratic (in the meaning of vigilant citizenry) enough. They are content with conveniences instead of asking for more control and freedom for them.
(I'm not talking about FSF style freedom either. I would be content with EFF style freedom).
Well that's the thing with democracy and freedom in general.
It's not enough to vote. You have to be vigilant, and you have to be a political (as opposed to private) person.
That a platform like Facebook can swallow the internet if it "offers people what the want/need", means that people are not democratic (in the meaning of vigilant citizenry) enough. They are content with conveniences instead of asking for more control and freedom for them.
(I'm not talking about FSF style freedom either. I would be content with EFF style freedom).
The is not from 1998, it's satire of all the we got bought blogs in this latest round of angel consolidation...
So just to spell it out for other readers:
* This item links to a blog post published 3 March 2013 and fictitiously dated "1998" at the top as a rhetorical point.
* The original title of the link as originally submitted was "The World Wide Web is Moving to AOL".
* The link was subsequently retitled to "The World Wide Web is Moving to AOL (1998)". I like to think that this was done as a covert act of subversion by a mischievous moderator quietly trying to draw attention to the capricious nature of news.ycombinator headline changes by following the rules to the letter.
* This item links to a blog post published 3 March 2013 and fictitiously dated "1998" at the top as a rhetorical point.
* The original title of the link as originally submitted was "The World Wide Web is Moving to AOL".
* The link was subsequently retitled to "The World Wide Web is Moving to AOL (1998)". I like to think that this was done as a covert act of subversion by a mischievous moderator quietly trying to draw attention to the capricious nature of news.ycombinator headline changes by following the rules to the letter.
According to Wikipedia, the term 'blog' was invented in 1999. :)
Thank you Capt'n Obvious. You save the day again.
It may be clear, but still the title shouldn't mention "1998".
I think including the "1998" made the satire more effective.
It made it better linkbait but confused some commenters...
Fantastic bit of satire. Poking fun of companies built for the flip is well deserved, however I have to wonder if things really have changed? Or was it that in the 90s when a web company didn't take off did it simply shut down without notice?
Most of the money in online services in the mid-90s was being made by companies like AOL, CompuServe, etc. [citation needed] WWW was essentially one competing protocol/platform among many. When its dominance was all but assured by the late 90s, indeed, many companies started trying to make money directly on the web, and most of them collapsed and took with them all the VC funding that was being poured into the virtual black hole of the "new paradigm" of unbounded e-business growth.
For a time, Microsoft practically did own the inter- and post-bubble WWW with IE 5-6, but their profits were through OS and Office sales, not web revenue, and e-retailers of various sorts were the main players making money directly from WWW.
I think today's web, which perhaps started somewhere in the 2005 period with the rise of social media giants and the dominance of online advertising ala Google, is definitely a change, and brought with it the flip.
For a time, Microsoft practically did own the inter- and post-bubble WWW with IE 5-6, but their profits were through OS and Office sales, not web revenue, and e-retailers of various sorts were the main players making money directly from WWW.
I think today's web, which perhaps started somewhere in the 2005 period with the rise of social media giants and the dominance of online advertising ala Google, is definitely a change, and brought with it the flip.
somewhere in the 2005 period with the rise of social media giants and the dominance of online advertising ala Google
And the rise of AJAX and client side javascript web applications and made the web much better. Gmail was one of the first "ajax" applications that got big./
And the rise of AJAX and client side javascript web applications and made the web much better. Gmail was one of the first "ajax" applications that got big./
The web was far better before AJAX and client-side javascript. Pages were actually in HTML, fonts were adjustable, and ads were tiny and unobtrusive.
No, I remember the web back then, it was terrible. Banner ads everywhere. Pop-up ads too. Content that worked in some browsers but not all. Horrific typography and color choices. Flash based "mystery meat" interfaces.
Geocities sites were not some special dark corner of the internet they were representative examples of the extant design of the era.
Geocities sites were not some special dark corner of the internet they were representative examples of the extant design of the era.
You're just seeing history through rose-colored glasses. Nostalgia is a pleasant diversion, but when you start believing that things were truly so much better in the past you have a serious problem.
That post just confused me greatly
In the modern web, pages are still in HTML, font's can still be adjusted, and ads are automatically filtered out.
In the modern web, pages are still in HTML, font's can still be adjusted, and ads are automatically filtered out.
In modern web pages, much of the content is delivered through AJAX and isn't in the actual HTML of the page, adjusting fonts often breaks layouts, and for people who can't figure out how to use AdBlock (or are on a mobile device), ads are big, obtrusive, hover over the page content affairs.
I think you're thinking about the OLD web, when adjusting fonts would break table-based, graphic-intensive websites. Unless you want to go even further back - to a time when gif backgrounds of the stars were common and text was displayed through Comic Sans.
> ads were tiny and unobtrusive
Huh? I remember loads and loads of pop ups
Huh? I remember loads and loads of pop ups
> The web was far better before AJAX and client-side javascript.
Ah, yes: Java applets that made your system crawl.
Flash interfaces that likely 'worked', but had been designed by an alien with no comprehension of human cognition or interface design.
Text that was delivered as a set of lossy JPEGs because the designer really, really wanted a font that was only installed on a dozen people's computers. (Good luck accessing that if you were blind or, more likely, stuck behind a slow, unreliable dial-up connection.)
Pop-up ads your browser was too stupid to block.
Endlessly looping MIDI making you forever hate Skye Boat Song and The Entertainer.
Good times, good times.
Ah, yes: Java applets that made your system crawl.
Flash interfaces that likely 'worked', but had been designed by an alien with no comprehension of human cognition or interface design.
Text that was delivered as a set of lossy JPEGs because the designer really, really wanted a font that was only installed on a dozen people's computers. (Good luck accessing that if you were blind or, more likely, stuck behind a slow, unreliable dial-up connection.)
Pop-up ads your browser was too stupid to block.
Endlessly looping MIDI making you forever hate Skye Boat Song and The Entertainer.
Good times, good times.
>Flash interfaces that likely 'worked', but had been designed by an alien with no comprehension of human cognition or interface design.
How is bad interface design a problem specific to Flash? Surely you can create a bad interface with modern tools just as easily?
How is bad interface design a problem specific to Flash? Surely you can create a bad interface with modern tools just as easily?
Not just bad interface design: Incomprehensible interface design. Interfaces which have nothing in common with any other interface the user has seen before.
With HTML you at least have a stronger pressure to use the same text boxes everyone else does, for example: There's more standardization of basic building blocks. You can go whole-hog with reinventing the square wheel only this time making it diamond-shaped and made out of cream cheese, but it's harder.
In Flash, apparently, there's less of a counterbalance to going off entirely on your own and making something only you can understand.
With HTML you at least have a stronger pressure to use the same text boxes everyone else does, for example: There's more standardization of basic building blocks. You can go whole-hog with reinventing the square wheel only this time making it diamond-shaped and made out of cream cheese, but it's harder.
In Flash, apparently, there's less of a counterbalance to going off entirely on your own and making something only you can understand.
Love the line "Just to be safe, be sure to print out all of your favorite pages before the end of the month."
Being so zealously anti-Facebook as I am, I kept waiting for a Facebook punchline. Ah, I see you have risen above that and make a bigger point. Bravo.
[deleted]
I've been arguing for a few years that this is a cyclical thing - just as before Facebook there was AOL, before AOL there was Compuserve and so on. Every so often technological advances make the wider net so much easier to use that the curated platform suddenly looks antiquated, then a few years later those advances facilitate the construction of a new platform.
True, true. Consider the 'September' phenomenon. Newbies need a place to congregate. Those services catered to new users (termed IIRC 'lusers' at the time). Once 'it all' has become more familiar, then specialization happens, and more creative/sophisticated users start to resent the 'operation of the machine' and branch out into the niches (as teens are doing now with FB). I see no reason to expect that has changed.
I wrote this two years ago:
http://myownstream.com/blog#2011-05-21
http://myownstream.com/blog#2011-05-21
I did a search on "World Wide Web, Inc." and this came up: http://websales.us/
The history is always repeating itself. So what is the next repeating story?
[deleted]
We are lucky indeed to have www, tcp, etc. The open ethos of the internet works, but needs defending.
Sometimes a good offense is the best defense. IMHO we need more internet-inspired disruptions that bring an open ethos to energy, transportation, and health.
Sometimes a good offense is the best defense. IMHO we need more internet-inspired disruptions that bring an open ethos to energy, transportation, and health.
WordPress could be expanded to do battle with Facebook, IMO.
This is a good idea. It seems like everyone working on this problem so far has been trying to start from scratch (Diaspora, Tent, etc), but building on existing popular platforms would give a system a huge advantage.
I don't know exactly what it would look like, but I think it's worth exploring.
I don't know exactly what it would look like, but I think it's worth exploring.
Some sort of WP (or other software) plugins for a messaging/activity stream, and a distributed pubsub messaging system between sites? (using probably json over http/spdy/websockets, not something separate like AMPQ)
It would require certain capabilities from the participating blogs/pages/webservers, and it would be fragile in the case of url changes, but it might be workable.
It would require certain capabilities from the participating blogs/pages/webservers, and it would be fragile in the case of url changes, but it might be workable.
http://buddypress.org/ is the WordPress-based solution for messaging/activity, but it's mainly intended for niche social networks. To fully build a distributed and decentralised system, we need both a protocol to communicate between servers, in addition to the support from those servers.
"both a protocol to communicate between servers, in addition to the support from those servers"
Yes, I think this is the advantage of WordPress over Diaspora. To some extent the infrastructure is already in place. Diaspora runs Ruby so ubiquity might take longer. (I was skeptical of Diaspora at first but I do think it has a fighting chance.) I don't have stats handy but I'd guesstimate there's several million self-hosted WordPress blogs out there representing tons of computing power, at least a starting point. Why bet on a Twitter or Facebook or Google Plus API that could be shut off without warning when you know WordPress is here to stay? I've been saying this for years--since then Automattic has launched Jetpack and user profiles, extending Gravatar.com, but we're still a long way off. But as I've said before, I think something like this would need Matt's blessing, not because he's a gatekeeper but because I think it's an ambitious idea that needs an influential visionary behind it to pave the way forward. Anyway, I'm not saying anything new, lots of smart people are working on decentralized networks.
Yes, I think this is the advantage of WordPress over Diaspora. To some extent the infrastructure is already in place. Diaspora runs Ruby so ubiquity might take longer. (I was skeptical of Diaspora at first but I do think it has a fighting chance.) I don't have stats handy but I'd guesstimate there's several million self-hosted WordPress blogs out there representing tons of computing power, at least a starting point. Why bet on a Twitter or Facebook or Google Plus API that could be shut off without warning when you know WordPress is here to stay? I've been saying this for years--since then Automattic has launched Jetpack and user profiles, extending Gravatar.com, but we're still a long way off. But as I've said before, I think something like this would need Matt's blessing, not because he's a gatekeeper but because I think it's an ambitious idea that needs an influential visionary behind it to pave the way forward. Anyway, I'm not saying anything new, lots of smart people are working on decentralized networks.
But if it depends on Google Gadgets to work (at least I think that's what your link says) they killed Gadgets back in 2011. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/09/06/2021227/google-kills...
So while this blog post makes a great point, it feels like it's trying to convince the sun not to rise tomorrow - nothing we do will stop platforms such as Facebook rising if they offer what people want/need. We would need to make a better version, and that isn't always feasible.
I don't use Facebook, but that certainly doesn't stop the masses using it and looking at me strangely when I try to explain to them why I don't use it. We're probably in for a bumpy tech ride in the near future as always-online comes to apps everywhere.