Hacker News Reader

Comment by mendelk | Hacker News Reader

I have a silly question:

If the conspiracy theorists are right, the whole ad-blocking on ios is a ploy to get the ad-starved publishers, and thus the masses, off the web-based internet and onto in-app content silos such as Apple News.

If they're wildly successful, the only ones left on the traditional internet would be those not producing content for money.

Does that mean I'll be able to experience the internet the way the old-timers reminisce? Before Eternal September[0]?

I've always felt bad I missed thosed times, and while this would certainly be a regression for the society at large, I think that would be something I'd like to experience :)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

View on HN

Eternal September? The internet was still great from that regard (tons of people "not producing content for money"), no big central control, no FB/Google/Twitter/etc, until around the time we got Google.

There was AOL of course, but that was mostly mocked by people on the "real" internet.

>and while this would certainly be a regression for the society at large

Actually, it might be a huge improvement. Technofiles will never go for this, but after a point technology in a societal context can have not just diminishing returns but even spoil good things (like going to a concert in your 20s without being glued to a smartphone screen).

> The internet was still great ... until around the time we got Google.

Depressingly accurate.

Alas, the probable trajectory is not all-out war on Google, but rather a number of plausible threats followed by a hammering out of market boundaries followed by a tacit non-compete between the players.

>The internet was still great... until around the time we got Google.

Not that I necessarily agree with your assertion, it's worth emphasizing the reason that Google took off: search just plain sucked before Google came on the scene.

Personally, my only real issue with Google is the decline in precise search result quality since they got rid of the + operator.

You can search for a precise phrase using quotation marks. You can also prevent Google from returning assumed synonyms of a word by putting that single word in quotes.

Hang on, if I search for "sausages" does Google only return sausages, or does it return chorizo, hotdogs, bangers etc?

What's the difference between "sausages" and 'sausages', or does this not make sense for single words?

yes.

The big difference is that now you are often mislead by synonyms. Previously it would return 0 and you'd think for second and find alternative keyword. Now you'll spend minutes until you realise that what you are seeing is nonsense. Also, removal of some keywords completely messed this up again.

> The internet was still great ... until around the time we got Google.

Correlation but not necessarily causation.

I wasn't going for causation (or even correlation). Just to convey the general time frame.

You have to admit that after establishing its dominance Google started to dictate its own rules for web design, rather than adapting to the pages people already had. Google's algorithm that places incoming links above anything else for relevance is singlehandedly responsible for forum spambots, fake websites, and the dynamic where new websites have no chance to compete with something established, unless they run some kind of marketing campaign to "seed" the links.

The Eternal September started in 1993, and I don't know if you remember what the internet was like at that time, but I do and I wouldn't go back to it.

There are plenty other ways to make money on the internet. Paywalls (stratechery), sponsors (daring fireball), native advertising (buzzfeed). Also maybe we will see rise of better ad networks (the deck) that people will not actually block?

Advertising will survive in some form, hopefully better for all of us than the current mess.

>> If they're wildly successful, the only ones left on the traditional internet would be those not producing content for money.

Well, what it actually means is that folks who monetize their content in ways other than ads could begin to have an advantage. For example, Red Bull Media monetizes their content with drink sales. PBS, NPR, and Think Progress monetize their content with donations.

Conspiracy?

Apple and others are entitled to keep their strategies unsaid, unconfirmed. Which leaves only speculation, which turns into observation when we see Wired's lead website story is nothing but a signpost to Apple native land. A happy land with double rainbows, shooting stars and perfectly trimmed hedges.

>>I think that would be something I'd like to experience

So what prevents you from exploring I2P? I think this network is exactly what you need :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com