Yup. It definitely feels like over time the human element of the Internet has been replaced by a corporate one. The most blatant example I can think of is youtube. Nowadays it’s so obvious rigged in the favour of already established media and a select few content creators.
the internet is worse.
Submitted 1 year ago by sbg@lemmy.world to mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/4e030f1d-29eb-429c-a768-18a85fb8f36e.png
Comments
STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world 1 year ago
UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Yeah I’m feeling less like a participant, and more like a consumer on the “greater internet” (five big), compared to the early days when corporate presence was minimal, and not remotely slick or subtle. It was like dorky and obvious, and didn’t seem remotely like a threat.
GladiusB@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Anywhere there is money there are charlatans
HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Feeling like a consumer is a great way to put it. It especially feels more and more like it when trying to do even the most mundane tasks. Like if you own a product but need to ask a question on Google about it, first you have to scroll past the links to pages trying to sell you the product you typed in, then you might get some reddit links, 2-3 from a smaller forum, and then more links trying to sell you the product. It will say there’s thousands of results, but it’s just the same 6 links to purchase the product over and over again. So now even basic web searches are mainly for buying stuff.
RandomPancake@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I miss the day when you could search YouTube for something like “JFK skyclub” and actually get video of the Skyclub at JFK. Today you’ll get 15-minute videos that are 90% a guy talking about his thoughts on JFK, or Skyclub, or airlines, or whatever. If you’re really lucky, some of them may feature a few seconds of actual footage of Skyclub.
It’s not just Skyclub or travel videos. If I search for “repair mr coffee” I want to see a howto, not someone’s SEO-optimized long winded lecture about whatever coffeemakers they’re selling.
tdawg@lemmy.world 1 year ago
So the weird thing is you can still do this but only if YouTube thinks your the right audience for it. My grandfather looks up all kinds of old things on YouTube and almost always get exactly what he wants on the first hit. However if I do it it ends up more like your example. Interesting and annoying at the same time
Sarcastik@lemmy.world 1 year ago
“Don’t forget to hit the bell and smash that like and subscribe button!”
Auli@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Yes but it is also way bigger then it was. The amount of data that YouTube has now is just insane. I wonder when they’ll start culling old videos.
Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 year ago
But we act like youtube is something more then just a place to post videos. We can build a new youtube tomorrow if people weren’t so invested in it. If you have some content on YouTube you just can’t live without fine but for everything else let’s migrate… sorry, got a little preachy.
Sestren@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah, that’s completely untrue… The reason we can’t just create a new youtube is the same reason there aren’t more ISPs. The infrastructure cost is too high.
You can’t just build a site that allows video uploads and playback, throw it on a Pi and release it to the world. You need scalability, and that costs money.
Maybe the end solution is a distributed system, but that’s not something you can easily sell to the average Joe that doesn’t give a shit about the “how” or “why” with Youtube, and simply wants to watch videos.
I’m not saying that Google isn’t the scum of the earth, but there is currently no feasible way to recreate what they’ve made/bought without an absolutely stupid amount of money.
amio@kbin.social 1 year ago
We can build a new youtube tomorrow
Unfortunately not. The cost would be astronomical. Youtube bled money like a stuck pig for a long time, and their monetization has turned out predictably awful, every time.
Don't get me wrong, the competition would be great, or at least having the option of something... less Youtube. There's a reason you don't see a lot of alternatives around, though, and certainly nothing at the same kind of scale.
UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I get your heart’s in the right place. But good luck finding investors to pay for the massive infrastructure costs to back your YouTube alternative (read competitor) without a plan to extract money from someone. Not even to break even, but to turn a profit.
It would be nice if there was public money to create these alternatives - that was m way you wouldn’t have to worry about profit, just whether your solution is meeting the public need.
AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I don’t know how much it costs to run or how ads fully function on the service, but we do have Odysee. I have yet to have seen a single ad from my collection in the app outside of creators whose vid that’s also up on yt having a sponsored segment.
UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
That said I’m with you. I try to avoid YouTube whenever I can. Wish more people would do the same
spacecadet@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Worse than what? Paying Atlantic for a subscription?
BolexForSoup@kbin.social 1 year ago
Whether we like the Atlantic or not, I feel like at some point if we want quality journalism we need to fund it.
WarmSoda@lemm.ee 1 year ago
They did it to themselves by starting out with free journalism everywhere on the net. And then it took them far too long to finally realize they ads alone weren’t going to pay the bills. If they had stuck with the magazine rack style from the get go (pay for it + ads) it wouldn’t be an issue.
If you give everything away for free for thirty years, and then suddenly take that away, you’re going to have a hard time getting money.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 year ago
But do paywalls actually encourage people to pay? I would point out that NPR/PBS and The Guardian are at least partially funded by the people but still offer news for free and it seems to work.
GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Regulation would be a better way to improve the quality of journalism, IMO.
sbg@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Fair point. I don’t mean to suggest that authors don’t deserve to be paid for their work. And while the article discusses Google and Amazon’s attempts to manipulate online behavior to drive up their profits, I remember a time when paywalls were a rare exception rather than the rule while reading articles online.
Copernican@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That’s because there was a time when everyone had print subscriptions that were healthy, and the internet just gave them extra money for ads. When you start losing subscribers because everyone is looking at your shit online for free, you learn you need to charge for it.
CubbyTustard@reddthat.com 1 year ago
that was back before ad blocking was common though. The news sites used to make all their money from inline ads but you have to have so much more traffic to make the same amount these days and there’s exponentially more competition.
FireTower@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Worse than it had been previously.
PutangInaMo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Oh the irony
uis@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s called enshittification.
PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [bot] 1 year ago
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Metatronz@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Dead on.
Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 year ago
Simple, capitalism found a new promised land. The next space to fill up. And manifest destiny within.
Unfortunately but fortunately as well, it’s an infinite space. Early money has built large infrastructure within it. It’s been built over time and now is so massive it’s hard to comprehend in the real world. It’s nearly impossible to compete with them other than them tearing themselves down, but the space is still nearly infinitely large and competitors can still rise in the fringe and who knows after decades maybe rise to the same kinda massive company
So now we must limit the infinite. Cull all of it to the finite they can control. The virtual world is real, the metaverse is already upon us, and unfortunately it’s already starting to look like the late capitalism asphalt shopping plazas.
So it’s worse cause it’s built for the investors and being limited for them too. It’s why people beg for the next BIG thing, so that they can find new land or new ways to control this 4th space.
snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 1 year ago
so that they can find new land or new ways to control this 4th space. Pretty sure that Meta was meant to be the next big market space.
I think Zuckerberg was expecting all of us to sit in a chair with VR headsets on all day and buy buy buy.
I personally feel like it’s a total invasion of my privacy because it learns “me” and then tries to influence my every move a lot more intimately than cookies in a browser does.
Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 year ago
100% absolute control over your life to sell you as much as possible… And people consider that a utopia and not a problem
TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.com 1 year ago
It also shows how detached some of these billionaires really are. A VR system is not yet affordable for the majority of Americans, and the technology has much more development to do before it's as widespread as video game consoles, never mind PCs.
Auli@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Yah don’t see a small player coming around anytime soon. People don’t realise how uterlu massive these tech companies are.
Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 year ago
Yeah no. Not a chance we see valid competitors until cracks really start forming in the services these monopolies can offer. It’s gotta get worse before there can be competition and so they can t just buy them and aquire it to break immediately. I mean we can see some monopolies having their fun ruined look at Twitter; but Facebook, Amazon and Google have money in reserve and an ad system (or AWS) that pays all the bills still.
But yeah people don’t comprehend that these massive online companies are all the Nestle of their space and people can’t even comprehend what being the Nestle of Nestle is, and the power they wield.
MataVatnik@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The virtual world is real, the metaverse is already upon us, and unfortunately it’s already starting to look like the late capitalism asphalt shopping plazas.
Poetry
the_q@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Take me back to the days of FFVII’s Aerith Theme midi playing in the background of someone’s Geocities site dedicated to Chrono Trigger. The non-consumer driven Web…
Thrashy@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Or give me the joy of discovering a webforum dedicated to some niche community you were interested in, and making actual, real-life friends with the people you met there. Can’t say that I’ve made a connection like that since, oh, Burning Crusade-era WoW at the latest.
khalic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I was totally addicted to wow and it definitely hurt my social development, but damn if those aren’t great memories
FarceMultiplier@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Trust corporations to ruin something people enjoy.
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Its time to ‘AT&T’ Alphabet/Google/YouTube.
mushrooms_smell_bad@lemmings.world 1 year ago
Tell me no one actually needed to be told that. Please. For my sanity.
Misconduct@startrek.website 1 year ago
Hold on let me Google it…
Sorry, just seven pages of ads about vacuums because I bought one six months ago and links that all go to the same regurgitated article that only vaguely mentions it 🙃
douglasg14b@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Please tell me no one thinks that evidence < anecdotes? Please, for my sanity…
The sad state of knowledge & logic aside:
There is SIGNIFICANT value to proving something we all think is true. This means action can be taken, it can be cited in argument, and is actually credible as opposed to a “feeling” that’s it’s worse.
_Lost_@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Funny, but this isn’t the best example. The Atlantic has been a subscription magazine for coming on 200 years now. It’s also one of the few places you can get non click bait articles without ads.
WarmSoda@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Well, it definitely gets the point across lol
Betch@lemmy.world 1 year ago
12ft.io is your friend
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Or disabling js. Most of you use ublock origin. Ublock has a setting to disable JavaScript and you can whitelist sites you want js
mojo@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Disabling js does not bypass these article limits, idk why this is being upvoted.
mojo@lemm.ee 1 year ago
They’re not asking to get around it, they’re pointing out shitty practices that are common now.
dan@upvote.au 1 year ago
People don’t want to pay, but they also don’t want to see ads. How does everyone think these companies are going to afford to operate?
ReCursing@kbin.social 1 year ago
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
I would get off google if I were you
mojo@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Chrome browser is cancer, but also this has nothing to do with Google.
ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world 1 year ago
God forbid you pay someone.
xkforce@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Good old atlantic coming to the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons.
abs_solution@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
I believe what you meant to write is “The internet IS worse”
winterayars@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
If people are actually acknowledging this maybe we could do something about it.
Google should have been (should be?) nationalized. Or maybe stick it under the USPS. (If only people weren’t constantly trying to kill the USPS…)
Kase@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is an interesting idea! I’ve never heard something like this suggested before.
Sludgehammer@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Well… you gotta hand it to them, that’s a succinct summary.
Smk@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Capitalism does not work well when companies are too big. No one can compete unless you are already very rich. That sucks.
ultratiem@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
The FTC’s lawsuit against Amazon is actually insane. It’s like they have a cheat code for printing money. Google is definitely just as bad, worse even as they control much of the internet, right down to the architecture.
LillyPip@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
/c/mildlyalarming
nearjsss@reddthat.com 1 year ago
Actor de metodo
altima_neo@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
Internet was better when it was a bunch of forums and personal web pages
kitonthenet@kbin.social 1 year ago
We can get it back, and the antitrust trials are a big part of actually doing it
https://youtu.be/rimtaSgGz_4?si=fQc-lIFzT-0hoeNv
PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [bot] 1 year ago
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/rimtaSgGz_4?si=fQc-lIFzT-0hoeNv
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Auli@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
No we can’t. It’s been consolidated. Sure some of us might get a little piece of freedom but the web is going to stay consolidated unless something major happens…
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The internet was better when it was Usenet and Gopher.
WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The internet was better when it was a pair of tin cans and a string.
rwhitisissle@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Honestly, the internet was at its best when it was the fever dream of stoned, sexually frustrated grad students at Berkley. Infinite potential - it could’ve been anything. Could’ve. But wouldn’t. The real thing, after it became fully saturated in everyday American life, was always going to be some mediocre, watered down corporate cesspool of lowest common denominator, hyper-sanitized garbage. Because that’s what people like. They like safe, familiar, predictable, and uncomplicated. Well, most people.