this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
586 points (97.3% liked)

memes

9856 readers
4429 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
586
old web grandma (lemmy.world)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by ElectroVagrant to c/memes
 

but wait there's these spaces

Image description:
Young woman helping an old woman as she reminisces about the old web, "The web used to be open and distributed! Not closed and concentrated in the hands of a few companies!" The young woman, "Sure grandma, now let's get you to bed."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago (12 children)

Hot take: the actual Web still is free and open. At least it is, as of this writing. Anyone can register domains. Anyone can pay to host a website. And they can put whatever they want on that website, as long as it doesn't violate laws against incitement, harassment, copyright (not even applicable in all nations), and a few other things.

When people complain about "the big evil corporations" and how they're "controlling the Web," they usually aren't being very intentional and specific with what they're saying. What's going on lately is the fact that "the big evil corporations" have constructed large platforms, which have large user-bases.

The free and open internet was never supposed to include any kind of a guarantee that you'll have a massive platform, with a massive audience. As an example, let's say you've been "deplatformed" from YouTube for uploading videos about firearms, in a way that violates their increasingly strict rules about that subject.

You don't have to be happy about it. You don't have to agree with the policies. You can hold the opinion that it's unfortunate for that platform to have those particular standards.

What you can't do (at least, not with any true honesty) is claim that your removal from that platform is somehow an example of the Internet being "closed" or "not free."

The Internet is as free as it ever was. You can make your own website, RIGHT NOW and upload your videos to it. You don't need permission from anyone, and you ABSOLUTELY WILL BE ABLE TO FIND A HOST WHO WILL HOST YOUR CONTENT. Those are facts. The Web IS still absolutely free and open.

The problem is, people have decided (for reasons which are entirely mysterious to me) that they are entitled to all the services and benefits of these large, pre-existing platforms. People think they're entitled to have someone else pay for their hosting, provide them with access to a large audience of potential subscribers, and provide them with free tools to upload and manage their content. In reality, nobody is entitled to any of this stuff. If you don't want to play by Google/YouTube's rules, or you don't want to play by Reddit's rules, or you don't want to play by anyone else's rules....well, they can kick you off their platforms. And there's literally nothing wrong with that.

To belabor the point, you are absolutely free to make your own fucking website. That part never changed. That part does not seem likely to change. Would Google/YouTube/Alphabet like to see that situation change? Would they like to have a controlling interest of some kind, in terms of who can actually upload stuff to the Web? Maybe. Probably, even.

But that's not the case, for the moment. Right now, we have a situation where large social media platforms exist, and it's obvious that there are benefits to navigating their landscape. But those social media platforms are NOT synonymous with "the Web." They are discrete platforms, unto themselves, which are ACCESSED by use of the Internet and the Web. There is no intellectually sound basis for demanding that these platforms act as you might wish them to act. You don't own them. I don't own them. The government doesn't own them. They can set whatever rules they want, and I can't think of any valid reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do just that.

Even though they're "big bad corporations," they paid for the labor and resources to build their platforms. Nobody else owns them. Therefore, once again, they have every right to enforce their own rules, run their own algorithms, and anything else they want to do, as long as it's within the law. And, for the last time, if you don't like it, YOU ARE FREE TO MAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING WEBSITE.

Note that I'm writing this on a website that is partially defined in terms of being deliberately outside the current mainstream social media structure. It doesn't have as big a userbase. That's a fact. Maybe the Fediverse will eventually have a massive audience. I would hope so. But that's not something any of us are ENTITLED to.

[–] Viking_Hippie 18 points 8 months ago (6 children)

The Internet is as free as it ever was.

That's like saying you're still allowed to use a horse as your only mode of transportation.

While technically true for some but not all places, in reality it's just not a practical thing anymore as it has been displaced by motorized transportation and social media being where 99% of the people are, respectively.

You're allowed to try to make people notice a website with no social media presence in the same way as you're allowed to run for congress as an independent with a budget of the necessary registration fees plus $5.

[–] TechLich 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I feel like that's not a fair comparison. You can't ride a horse on a freeway but you absolutely can host a website that anyone in the world can access instantly.

Back when the web was "open" and "free" and not dominated by social media, the 99% of people, the millions and billions of users, weren't using it. It's not like your Geocities page in 1999 had a billion visitors (despite what your "one billionth visitor" blink tags proclaimed). Even after it got added to that popular web ring for like-minded netizens.

I feel like people have forgotten what the old web was really like and that most communities only had a handful of active people. You can still do that and in fact there are thousands of such small independent websites and communities in forums and platforms like this. Hell, a bunch of the old forums and IRC channels etc. from back then are still running and some actually have more users than ever just because of more overall internet adoption.

It's a bit sad that Google SEO favours large platforms and garbage medium blogs over smaller personal websites but search was mostly shit back then too (metacrawler ftw).

[–] thevoidzero 2 points 8 months ago

You said you're not allowed to use a horse on freeway and it's not a fair comparison. But I think it is exactly that. Freeway is where the majority of traffic is and it's analogous to some of those major platforms where everyone is nowadays. You can use a horse and go to any place as long as there is land. It's just not practical to do it.

Yes you can make a website anyone can access but how will they find that website? You'll need to inform the people in the web, and that's dominated by those platforms. When people did the reddit blackout thing, reddit removed the posts and moving to lemmy, so without those posts we can't expect people to know about alternatives. There are probably so many websites that host contents for users to post and such, but how many have we heard about? How many can we find with an internet search?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Still acting as if everyone's complaing that "but no one will go to my website"

Maybe you'll realise soon that no one said that, and that the actual complaint is that setting up any kind of functional website is expensive.

[–] TechLich 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It's really not... A domain name is what.. $5-10 per year? Web server software is free (nginx, apache, lighttptd, pick your poison). You could run a website on your phone. It doesn't need much hardware or network requirements unless you start hitting thousands of users.

A static IP helps but dynamic DNS is a thing. If you need more juice or you're located somewhere that NATs IPs, a public web host is like $5-10 a month if you're getting ripped off.

It costs more to get a streaming service subscription.

Hosting a popular webapp with tens or hundreds of thousands of concurrent users interacting with complex backend code and a database (see Lemmy) gets more expensive but it always was and it's now cheaper than ever.

Edit: I should point out that I'm pretty anti-corporate and I'm not defending the current state of social media or search results. I'm just also agreeing with the guy who pointed out that the web is still open and you can host a website on a potato.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

I agree with you and the original guy -- the web is still just a collection of interconnected computers, and it's still open and mostly inexpensive anyone to host a website on. The trouble for the individual is the maintenance cost, especially if their site sees high traffic. But that brings us back to the idea that you'll pretty much never see the same userbase as the large social media platforms.

This isn't to say that the power held by Google, Meta, Snapchat, or TikTok to direct information any which way they would like doesn't need to be dismantled. It's just that the web is still free, in the sense that it is just a road to another computer, and you can still prop up a house with an address on that road for relatively cheap.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

But the person above said

While technically true for some but not all places, in reality it’s just not a practical thing anymore as it has been displaced by motorized transportation and social media being where 99% of the people are, respectively.

You’re allowed to try to make people notice a website with no social media presence in the same way as you’re allowed to run for congress as an independent with a budget of the necessary registration fees plus $5.

Aren't they pretty much saying the exact thing that you're claiming nobody is saying? That in practice it's still easy to create your own website, but nobody will use it because 99% of people are on social media platforms, instead

I dunno maybe I'm missing something.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)