> People even discovered more of the Internet, such as things like "file transfer protocol," where they could get lots of stuff no one had ever seen in the form of files. Programs such as "finger" let a person see who had been online, which, again, blew people's minds. People were so excited by the World Wide Web, they never wanted to go back to AOL or Compuserve or Prodigy.<p>This person's explanation for why AOL died does not match up with my memories. I remember regularly using AOL's built in web browser (which was just a wrapper around IE) to surf the web. The reason my family switched away from AOL was because we could get faster internet through our cable company. It had nothing to do with FTP, fingering, or "discovering the world wide web".<p>> The business people decided that there should be a way to make something like AOL, even though everyone thought Web sites were amazing and didn't want to go back.<p>Again, this just doesn't line-up with how I remember things. I remember people liking the sense of community AOL had (the chats, IMs, forums, etc). It was other factors (faster internet, etc), that led to AOL's downfall.
A lot of people I know have online lives that live within or around facebook and nothing else.<p>They get their news from facebook as the news/media organisation posts updates to their feeds, which they can share with others via WhatsApp or messenger. No need to visit the news sites it's all there.<p>They get their local second hand marketplace through Facebook Marketplace, no need for eBay et al.<p>They get their local community updates, gossip, business recommendations etc. through Facebook Groups. No need for nextdoor or neighbourhoood specific websites/forums.<p>They can find local businesses through the Facebook as the businesses have a Page that describes what they do, testimonials from previous customers, bit of a social feed to add some personality/'blogging'. Contactable through messenger. The businesses don't need to setup a website, Facebook offers all the tools.<p>You never have to leave, especially on iOS/Android if you use the facebook app. Even links to external sites are rendered in a webview, so no need to look at URLs.
It seems like I completely mis-remember things...<p>IIRC, in <i>addition</i> to being an "online portal" to online content, it was also an ISP. Back in those days, most internet access was via a Dial-Up modem. If you wanted to get online, your computer had to <i>make a phone call</i>. Where we were, dialing outside of the region defined by our <i>prefix</i> (the 3 numbers <i>after</i> the area code) was considered a "long distance call" and was like 10 cents per minute or something. Connecting to the internet <i>ran up your phone bill ~ fast!</i> if you did not have a LOCAL ISP. IIRC (which is questionable), AOL had toll free numbers, but they'd charge you for your time online - so your internet bill came from your ISP only and not from ISP + Phone Company. Part of AOL's marketing gimmick "first 1,000 hours free!" or some such amount of time to get you to sign up.<p>This was nearly 30 years ago, and I didn't really understand how it all worked back then, and my parents paid the phone bills (not me!) so my recollection may be full of partial-truths or downright falsehoods. But point being - I think the article really understates AOL's role in being an ISP (especially for rural folks who didn't have local ISPs).
About this:<p>"The 1990s had a word for being trapped inside a manipulative notion of human contact: AOL. Facebook and its ilk are the rebirth of that limited vision."<p>Okay, but the tone is critical, so let's ask the question, if this limited vision is somehow a bad thing, why have we seen it for 30 years? If it was there at the beginning of the Web, and it is here now that the Web is mature, then there must be something compelling about "this limited vision."<p>Keep in mind, I was a huge fan of the original blogosphere of 2000-2008, and I was sad when it was killed off with the emergence of Facebook and Twitter. My first startup, from 2002-2008, was originally focused on weblog tools, before we moved onto ecommerce tools.<p>But, again, the question needs to be faced, why did people find Facebook more interesting that the blogosphere, and why did decentralized attempts at social networks (such as FOAF, Friend Of A Friend) fail to take off, despite a lot of hype from all the major dev personalities?<p>Merely whining about the way the world is doesn't really help anyone. Instead of complaining about "this limited vision" it would be helpful to see more essays about why, exactly, people continue to choose limited walled-gardens. Why don't more people want to see some wider vision fulfilled? Why don't more people explore more widely? Why don't more people take out there wallet and spend more money for the kind of independent content that, in theory, they might want to see?
I left Facebook years ago and have no reason to go back. I can share photos and videos with friends and family easily enough. Most of the online relationships were pretty superficial as well, so I don't need them anyway.<p>Facebook does have some value, but it seems like the signal to noise ratio is very low. I'm not sure how rare my case is though. How many people in there 20-40s feel the same?
Do not delete your Facebook. Delete your friends, delete your posts using scripts widely available.<p>This is what I did. You will not have any way to "re-activate" it, this way. You will keep your access to fb signin, events and messenger.
All this talk about Facebook without mentioning their huge investment in FB Reality Labs (FBRL) and the statements from Mark that he will turn them into a "Metaverse" company in 5 years. Now, will they be "the AOL of" this Metaverse is still to be determined but FB are pulling XR out from the tech fringes into a mainstream audience. Apple may well be making similar moves if rumors are to be taken seriously. As far as the Metaverse is concerned, we are still in the late DARPA-NET or early BBS days so while this title may hold true, it would be for reasons that are unintended by the author or those commenting here so far.
Geez, that article takes its time to get to the point doesn't it, WTF is the detour to Snap! and Friendster for?<p>Skimming the second half it seems the author got lost, he started talking about all the ways Facebook with its terrible anti-consumer actions isn't AOL...
> But there our story ends, because that chapter has not yet been written.<p>I think it will be harder to unseat Facebook than it was for AOL simply because of size.<p>At its peak, AOL had around 34 million subscribers. Thus you could easily grow and build by service by appealing to people who had never been on AOL and who we’re not enmeshed in the AOL ecosystem.<p>Facebook has billions of users. There aren’t enough people in the world who have Internet access to allow someone to build a massive service out of people who have never been on Facebook. Add to that Instagram and WhatsApp and there are not that many people who are on the Internet but not a part of Facebook’s ecosystem.
My personal take.<p>AOL died when private rooms stopped being private and the personal filing cabinet (unlimited storage) was discontinued. AOL easily had the biggest warez scene, once that was over and nobody could share files they went elsewhere.
Yahoo is perhaps more apt of a comparison: They do not offer anything that is not easily replaceable, they fail to innovate at every turn, and their revenue is almost completely tied to advertising.<p>You might say this describes Google as well, but search provides a real utility and I honestly don’t know what Facebook provides anyone other than an addicting experience that makes the user feel actively worse.
This article is sadly lacking in historical accuracy. AOL grew out of Quantum Link which definitely predated the Internet. In its heyday it provided far more utility than the Internet of the time. This is a terrible comparison.
AOL died because the world went broadband and AOL was dial-up. That's it. That's the only reason. It was pretty good in a lot of other ways, and I'd argue there's still a place for it today.<p>If you think FB is destined for failure because AOL failed, you're crazy.<p>FB is still on the leading-edge of change in this industry (Oculus). There's zero sense of stagnation in that company.
As I remember, AOL was a dial-up internet provider. The reason it held up for so long is because large swaths of USA didn't have broadband access up until very recently.
> <i>Facebook Is the AOL of 2021</i><p>Thanks ZDNet; that's the most succinct explanation I've ever read for why I've never had a Facebook account.
Guess I'll add my 2 cents. AOL died to me when I could chat with friends on ICQ and I had free Internet from NetZero, free e-mail from Juno.<p>When everything could be "free" by having ads - why pay for AOL? I do remember too, I got free DSL service AND a free DSL modem via an ad service.<p>It's kinda why good journalism is dying, too. Every time a paywall article is posted here people are up in arms or post a free version. Then, we have articles from zdnet which is clickbait, people are up in arms.
from Futurama season two:<p>"Good news everyone! Several years ago I tried to log on to AOL, and it just went through! Wheee! We're online!"
―Farnsworth<p>'bout sums up my AOL days
AOL never had the reach of Facebook, even adjusted for era, population, anything really.<p>HN has been predicting Facebook's demise for years, and it keeps getting bigger, making more money, etc etc.<p>Despite what you might think, Facebook isn't a giant Nuremburg Rally that will impale itself on race hate and political polarization...that's just the twisted worldview you're imposing on it.
My mom discovered Facebook last weekend and opened an account and is trying to figure out how to use it. I considered opening a short position in FB today.