TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Against an Increasingly User-Hostile Web (2017)

353 pointsby stargravealmost 5 years ago

19 comments

headalgorithmalmost 5 years ago
See previous discussion from 2017: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=15611122" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=15611122</a>
评论 #23343054 未加载
评论 #23343195 未加载
crazygringoalmost 5 years ago
&gt; <i>But most of the time we spend on the web today is no longer on the open Internet - it&#x27;s on private services like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.</i><p>Ultimately there are three good reasons for this, which the author doesn&#x27;t address at all.<p>The first is spam and abuse. The problem with a purely &quot;open web&quot; is that there&#x27;s no solution to those, because of bad actors. The only solution we&#x27;ve found so far are centralized organizations which can run sophisticated machine learning and hire thousands of moderators.<p>The second is aggregation and discoverability. What good is it to publish if nobody finds you? Matching what people want to read, with the content they&#x27;ll like (and not turning it into a firehose) is a really hard problem which, again, open standards basically do nothing for.<p>And then of course the third is monetization. There&#x27;s a lot of amazing content on, e.g. YouTube, that wouldn&#x27;t have been created if it weren&#x27;t for monetization, because it takes content creators time that they&#x27;d otherwise have to spend at a job.<p>Now if we can create open standards that work as well as centralized solutions for all three of these... then we&#x27;re talking.
评论 #23341699 未加载
评论 #23340373 未加载
评论 #23342229 未加载
评论 #23337545 未加载
评论 #23337935 未加载
评论 #23337658 未加载
评论 #23337562 未加载
benjaminjosephwalmost 5 years ago
The author talks about the web as &quot;one of humanity&#x27;s greatest inventions.&quot; which is now in crisis:<p>&gt; And now, we the architects of the modern web — web designers, UX designers, developers, creative directors, social media managers, data scientists, product managers, start-up people, strategists — are destroying it.<p>The interests of tech companies, investors and web professionals have not always aligned with the best interests of end-users and so there has been a gradual erosion of the freedoms embedded in the foundations of the web itself.<p>My favourite StarTrek moment is Captain Pike&#x27;s statement &quot;We are always in a fight for the future&quot;. Given the current state of the web, this feels truer than ever. Unlike the author, however, I don&#x27;t think the answer is better web pages. Any chance of us winning the fight for user freedoms must be bigger and bolder than that.<p>There has been an entire generation of entrepreneurs and investors who have thought and planned strategically how to shape the web to work in their best interests. A meaningful counter has to be equally intentional and coordinated to stand a chance at shaping the course technology takes. We are in a fight for the future and we need to think bigger to stand a chance of winning that fight.
评论 #23336473 未加载
评论 #23335116 未加载
评论 #23335339 未加载
评论 #23334806 未加载
评论 #23339077 未加载
评论 #23339100 未加载
评论 #23340216 未加载
评论 #23337637 未加载
gexlaalmost 5 years ago
Did the web sort of start out a super walled garden for millions of people?<p>My embarrassing story was starting out with an AOL disk in the mail. I thought the &quot;web&quot; was great fun and apparently I wasn&#x27;t alone. Often I couldn&#x27;t even log in because the web was all busy signals. It was the AOL fail wail.<p>In those early explorations, I found a button with the label &quot;www.&quot; I didn&#x27;t know what it was, but I did know that it sucked! I don&#x27;t think I bothered with the www again until after I moved away from AOL.<p>All the things we complain about on the web today should have its place. We just don&#x27;t need to go there. It&#x27;s not actually that hard to avoid tracking, etc. The majority of HN could probably work out some sort of Stallman type of setup over a weekend or two.<p>If we can&#x27;t avoid, then maybe we could create &quot;personas&quot; instead. Like in an MMORPG, create an avatar. Maybe we can create noise machines to throw people off. Do the opposite of the Brave browser. Run bots and clicking operations in the background (IMO clicking ads served to me with no intent to buy is only bad when I intend to profit or help someone I know to profit from it. If I have a process to do things randomly to obscure my tracks, then I&#x27;m fine?)<p>I think if we&#x27;re really going to make a dent, we need to work to create an ecosystem elsewhere. Look at the dark web for example. It&#x27;s crap, but you can buy drugs there! Open source developers maybe need to jump on the tooling. Writers need to add the content. Then of course we&#x27;ll just start the cycle over again. But maybe distributed next time.
评论 #23338466 未加载
评论 #23339173 未加载
x32n23nralmost 5 years ago
If you want a better web, we need to figure out two things, none of which appear in the author&#x27;s article:<p>1. How to pay for stuff in the web in the same way you can pay with cash in the real world.<p>2. How to regulate the new-age, digital-good, information-aggregation monopolies. I suspect this will have to be done by either a state-forced, or a highly-useful interoperability protocol for building new tech.
评论 #23338686 未加载
评论 #23337977 未加载
评论 #23347911 未加载
评论 #23336841 未加载
评论 #23336982 未加载
f055almost 5 years ago
The author highlights tracking, profiling &amp; targeting. Just yesterday, I Asked HN but none responded: can&#x27;t we just flood the trackers with random data instead of fight so hard to block them? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=23324946" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=23324946</a>
评论 #23335203 未加载
评论 #23336091 未加载
评论 #23336606 未加载
onebotalmost 5 years ago
This really hits home for me. Somehow the centralized web became better, maybe its a user experience thing. One can&#x27;t help but wonder if these are solvable in a decentralized or even federated approach?
评论 #23337191 未加载
thePunisheralmost 5 years ago
I&#x27;ve been thinking about writing a new webbrowser with very limited functionality which could be used on secure networks, such as Tor. It would only support a limited subset of HTTP and HTML &#x2F; CSS and HTML Video. No Javascript &#x2F; frames or anything else that could impart the safety.<p>I&#x27;ve been meaning to pitch it to the Tor Project, but haven&#x27;t gotten around to it yet.
评论 #23337974 未加载
评论 #23335304 未加载
评论 #23336933 未加载
评论 #23335021 未加载
fossuseralmost 5 years ago
I really liked this article (I found it after reading his newer one that was posted earlier today).<p>It’s also interesting that he links to a Cambridge Analytica talk to make his point in 2017 (before the scandal broke).<p>It’s even more accurate three years later.
mr_custardalmost 5 years ago
&quot;Consider minimalist browsers like Min ...&quot;<p>Oh! Exciting!<p>I dutifully went to check out the Min browser web page. &quot;Oh shit, it&#x27;s another Electron app&quot;. Noped it out of there.
评论 #23341645 未加载
michaelyoshikaalmost 5 years ago
It&#x27;s just consequence of some niche thing becoming popular.<p>There is no way to fix it other than inventing a new niche thing.
jonnypottyalmost 5 years ago
Anything sufficiently successful will always be consumed by the powerful and will ultimately become their tool
评论 #23340112 未加载
评论 #23335413 未加载
slx26almost 5 years ago
I really like it when people try to give practical advice after describing problems. Agree with most of what&#x27;s written in the post. But I&#x27;d like to discuss one part of it:<p>&gt; [...] the major websites of today&#x27;s web are not built for the visitor, but as means of using her.<p>To me, here lies a key point that both the writer and many commenters here in HN seemed to miss in 2017. What&#x27;s written here is just a <i>consequence</i>, and the post goes on to develop it through all its length... but why did the dynamics change in that way? What&#x27;s the underlying reason for the shift?<p>Some comments here in HN mentioned it: internet becoming a marketplace. With both its good and bad side-effects. It&#x27;s an extremely complex issue, but money does completely shape dynamics of current society, and therefore internet too, and it leaves us <i>without spaces that aren&#x27;t conditioned by it</i>. At small scale it doesn&#x27;t seem a big problem, or we rationalize it because everyone needs money to survive... But it really shapes the world, and we can&#x27;t simply ignore the ugly sides of it and pretend we can solve it without ever involving the discussion about money and the dynamics it generates.<p>The &quot;magic&quot; the post talks about only needs three ingredients: human curiosity, time (to develop that curiosity), and spaces (to host those humans and their time). Human curiosity and creativity will always exist as long as we don&#x27;t go extinct. About time... well, we can satisfy our basic needs more efficiently than ever... and yet, ironically, we are using the newly freed time to create &quot;more competitive&quot; products that focus on enslaving the potential of our fellow human beings through infinite-scroll addiction, fear of missing out, instant gratification, attention grabbing and other kinds of biases and &quot;bugs&quot; in the human system. And finally spaces. Well, nothing left. If the only accessible spaces require money or work-to-generate-money, you close the circle and can&#x27;t scape the landscape and conditioning I was describing. Even if there are some spaces left, they tend to fell into oblivion against the competition. Too hard to escape, too easy to rationalize.<p>And honestly, I don&#x27;t think there&#x27;s any game-changer discussion about morality standards here. Morals must play a very important part in getting us to start a change (and by us I mean the kind of people that&#x27;s most directly involved in tech, like this HN crowd), but as long as we don&#x27;t try to really disrupt at least some of the dynamics generated by money-profit-survival-motivations, I&#x27;m somewhat skeptical we will be able to move the needle, because efforts will be eaten by the competition even if we never wanted to play under those rules. Let&#x27;s hope I&#x27;m mistaken and it&#x27;s easier to solve.
评论 #23337183 未加载
stakkuralmost 5 years ago
Some days, I miss telnet-ing into BBSes.
peter_d_shermanalmost 5 years ago
I (as an armchair philosopher, and not a very good one at that), argue that the problem is not the web, nor technology, but Complexity Vs. Convenience.<p>In order to create the modern world, in order to create its conveniences, systems, sometimes very complex systems, must be implemented underneath, as infrastructure, to support all of that convenience.<p>Sometimes they are &quot;systems of systems&quot;, that is, infrastructures heaped on top of other infrastructures, etc.<p>They provide conveniences; that&#x27;s true, but they conversely create a series of corner-cases, a series of circumstances where the complexity creates additional problems, where the complexity serves to be the problem.<p>Consider a future sci-fi scenario of robot war...<p>What happened? What went wrong? Here&#x27;s what went wrong:<p>Robots were created to serve humanity, but over many centuries, many generations, the knowledge of how they were created (and what it took to control them) was lost, as mankind became lazier and lazier, and deferred all work to the robots.<p>The complexity of the robots (and their AI) increased, whereas the knowledge humanity possessed about them decreased.<p>At a certain time, at a certain critical juncture, because of the increasing knowledge asymmetry, creator (humanity) and creation switched roles, and now the creation caused great problems for the creator, who had basically lost the knowledge, (&quot;lost the manual for&quot; &lt;g&gt;), how to control the creation.<p>We see this pattern repeat in a variety of formats, in a variety of historic and present-day contexts; it includes (but is not limited to!): Technology, Religion, Law, Governments, Social Systems, etc.<p>Basically, all of those things were created to serve man, to serve mankind...<p>And (depending upon where you are in history, or what your knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of them is, in the present day), some of them either will, or at least have the apparency of, the loss of control by their creator -- mankind.<p>Frankenstein, by Mary Shelly, is an allegory of this theme, that is, of a creator that creates something for beneficial purposes, only that with enough time (and&#x2F;or loss of knowledge), the creation turns on the creator...<p>Understood properly, here&#x27;s the reason why all societies eventually fail, and why far in mankind&#x27;s past, there may have been a high-tecnology society (Atlantis?) which was destroyed, because with all of the solutions it brought, it also brought additional problems, such that those could not be controlled, and eventually it was destroyed, or was the cause of its own destruction...<p>The Greek myth of Sisyphus -- is also an allegory for this phenomena... If the stone which he has to roll up a hill (only to watch it roll back down again! &quot;There goes the neighborhood!&quot; &lt;g&gt;) represents society, then he is fated to roll it up the hill to its pinacle -- only to watch it roll back down again... over and over and over, for eternity...<p>So, Complexity Vs. Convenience. With every new convenience, you require more complexity, and you generate a new set of problems...
评论 #23341453 未加载
lanevorockzalmost 5 years ago
Seems interesting how he predicted how social media would turn users into commodities.
评论 #23336333 未加载
buzzkillingtonalmost 5 years ago
That&#x27;s a very fall of man rhetoric.<p>All electronic networks, from the original arpanet to tor, have suffered from the same problem: someone needs to pay for them yet each individual transaction is too small to matter.<p>Surveillance capitalism is the one model that scaled better than &#x27;let the army and universities pay for it&#x27; and it&#x27;s the one we&#x27;re stuck with until Xanadu becomes something more than vaporware.
评论 #23336999 未加载
jefreybullaalmost 5 years ago
In case people are interested: I created a list of alternatives to Google and Facebook services.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jefreybulla.github.io&#x2F;beprivate&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jefreybulla.github.io&#x2F;beprivate&#x2F;</a>
isollialmost 5 years ago
In the time since the article was published (2017), the GDPR has come into effect. I wonder how it affected third-party traffic, if at all. Especially for European websites such as lemonde.fr (used as an example by the author).
评论 #23336449 未加载