It's mostly true and the "mainstream mass audience" has always exhibited low active participation rates. There's a wikipedia article[1] about this that happens to focus on the internet and its low ratio of contributors.
However, this phenomenon of passive consumption has been happening all through history before the internet and it is independent of technology. Whether it's the Gutenberg Press or earlier primitive technology as simple as the quill pen & paper, there's always been a very small group of people that create the content vs the much larger group that consumes it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)
you 're speaking of a different thing, and as u said participation was low even before the internet's eternal september of 2005-10 happened.
No, I was responding to your claim of smartphone technology being the barrier to creativity by the mainstream audience:
>smartphone [...], it just removes most of the optionality for creativity leaving a device that does one thing well: consume mindnumbing amounts of trivial information.[...] But when all that creativity is funneled through single-purpose devices, it evaporates.
That claim assumes that there's a pent up wave of creativity that's being held back by smartphones. However, that misunderstands the fact that new technology doesn't really change the ratio of the people expressing creativity vs those that consume it. There wasn't really any massive creativity to "evaporate"; the desire to "be creative" was never there in the mainstream audience. You can't put the blame on technologies such as smartphones / Gutenberg press / pen & paper.
Completely agree with that. There's an animator (nina paley) that keeps an old computer with Macromedia Flash on it for the sake of keeping that sweet spot of software power or complexity and creativity.
It's weird seeing productivity tools reduce and guide their functionality towards what the devs think we mean to use the tool for. Getting more power and more complexity is still desirable in production. The ML procedural tools coming in productivity software will help with that, but the overall design ethos has been to cut out and simplify things that didn't need to go.
> guide their functionality towards what the devs think we mean
I think it's the fault of management. Software used to always have a few quirky buttons that almost nobody used, yet they were there for the sake of completeness. But ever since quarterly corporate revenue and engagement turned to a penile size contest, it's all about the bottom line. If it doesnt affect our bottom line, cut it off, which ends up leaving people with little more than a Skinner box in their hands.
Phones were never good at producing web pages, it's not like their presence has somehow now removed the ability from the PC.
Agree, but largely because their form factor allowed them to replace the camera. Cameras and photography are creative, and this carried over to the phone form factor, not the other way around. Cookie-cutter instagram filters and other prepackaged disney stuff is very lowly creative though.
And I wouldn't say it has enabled creativity for either sound or painting. It made sound recording easier yes, but it did not push the boundaries of what is possible to make with digital sound. The same with painting. IMHO, real creativity is always at the boundaries of what is available, and always pushes it a little further.
At the same time the number of people who can create wacky websites has not decreased, all of the tools are still out there. Phones may have simplified interfaces but they did not make the complex programs disappear.
Is it though? When I was 9, I created a site on Angelfire (and loved the fact that the default page was this craptastic html example where you could view source and kind of learn various html tags relating to lists, tables I believe, and various other things as a quick primer for those uneducated in HTML). I also created one on Geocities (different use cases in the end, but more or less I just wanted to see which was better/easier. Ended up with Angelfire as my main one as you could actually "name" your site as opposed to the generic "city"/"street" name-ish thing of Geocities). And if memory serves, there were other hosts that were similarly popular too. One iirc would allow for subdomains instead of the nesting that Angelfire/Geocities does, but if I believe by default they would have big branding somewhere on your page. Tried it, think there was a work around for that one, but I didn't like battling it so didn't retain.
Now, sure, I can find a host that I can pay $x to host the HTML that I build outright, but I don't know if kids coming up have the same resources I did as it relates to starting up a free site and having a default page with various HTML elements (too many at this point for a single page to be of value. Would probably have to look something like W3Schools or whatever with a list on the left you could go through).
Maybe they exist, but they weren't as obvious as they were then. When I first got online, I found a site that at least a few years ago was still around which was this chat site called 4-lane with the one I went to called Chatterbox. People would link to their pages hosted on Angelfire, and so it began. Now, everything is custom domained so it is hard to locate the Angelfire of today. If you blog, I guess there is Medium that links are posted of pretty regularly, but outside of that, I don't notice.
That doesn't happen today. People bumble along with Wordpress or services like Wix, but the customisation options for non-experts are very limited and generic.
Hosting has become much more complicated and confusing, and the web simply doesn't do simple any more. Even a small blog is a moderately complicated project, especially if it uses a build system. And building even a minimal independent commercial site requires very specialised skills and plenty of time.
There really isn't anything equivalent to AF/Geo. And even if there were, CSS and HTML - never mind js - are now so complex beginners can't just pick them up by dabbling.
followed by later:
> I just mean organically though. Hate to sound old, but back then, Yahoo was basically a nested index and Google if it was a thing at that point wasn't a commonly known one. Yet Angelfire, Geocities, etc. were easily located because sites hosted on them were shared so heavily and drop the /something/something (edit: from the URL) and it says "hey, you can create your own for free here".
> I just did a search for "free website" and there was Wix, Wordpress, Yola, and Weebly. Going to assume those are legit, but the rest of my results (which were way more common than those 4 entries) were offshoots of "[best/top/10] web site builders 2019" or some random other ones that won the SEO game.
Sorry, but when was it common for people to write and host their own blog and commercial sites, and when was this less than moderately complicated?
I remember Geocities and other similar sites offering server-side includes and CGI scripting, and of course services like Blogger and Livejournal existed, but I don't think writing your own blogware was ever really a common thing.
>And even if there were, CSS and HTML - never mind js - are now so complex beginners can't just pick them up by dabbling.
You can still write perfectly simple 90's style HTML and CSS, and vanilla javascript, even in Notepad (although I wouldn't recommend it just because I don't like Notepad.) You're mistaking the bloat and increasing complexity of the enterprise web development environment and tooling with what are still basic components. The web really hasn't changed that much, what's changed is what people put on it.
Edit: just did a search here for wordpress.com to see if anything shows up from the site itself. There are entries, but everything seems to be a communication of sorts from WordPress to developers (vip.wordpress.com, developer.wordpress.com, etc.) or an article about WordPress.com that is on techcrunch or the like. I'll grant you that Hacker News is probably not the gateway to the Internet for kids coming up now, so that probably doesn't say anything of importance (just figured maybe something that someone hosted there may turn up, but they may be custom domained and at that point, very unlikely someone is going from that site to WordPress.com to start up a site).
I just mean organically though. Hate to sound old, but back then, Yahoo was basically a nested index and Google if it was a thing at that point wasn't a commonly known one. Yet Angelfire, Geocities, etc. were easily located because sites hosted on them were shared so heavily and drop the /something/something (edit: from the URL) and it says "hey, you can create your own for free here".
I just did a search for "free website" and there was Wix, Wordpress, Yola, and Weebly. Going to assume those are legit, but the rest of my results (which were way more common than those 4 entries) were offshoots of "[best/top/10] web site builders 2019" or some random other ones that won the SEO game.
If it seems harder today, it’s only because the newer options are so much easier. Back in the day, if you wanted to put something up for people to read, you figured out web hosting or you didn’t do it. Now, you figure out web hosting or you post it on Medium/Facebook/whatever.
Created an account, put text and images in the WYSIWYG and saved. There you go, the site was online.
I remember moving stuff to GeoCities and Angelfire and weirder lost cousins like XOOM only when AOL started adding hidden fees for web space (I recall something like they started with a 10MB/screen-name free cap and then dropped to 1MB/screen-name cap), and then it was more important when the cost structure of AOL itself couldn't compete with other ISPs and it was time to move on from AOL dial-up to DSL.
It's a shame that "free web space" stopped being a competitive "feature" for ISPs. I like the tilde.town aesthetic of bringing back shared shell space. I sometimes wonder if there were a way to make something like that a "feature" that any kid "already has access to and should explore", but doing that at scale seems tough. Maybe more reason to see if we can do interesting things in decentralized web and decentralized web discovery mechanics as most people's home computers are already more capable than many of the very web servers ISPs used early in the web when free space was a competitive feature (they are just locked behind too many NAT layers and firewalls, for both good and bad reasons).
Remember ".tk"?
I wonder if they have a "proudly hosted on Neocities" button, 1990s-style.
I want to support Neocities if it'll ensure a good future, I'd just like to know that I'm supporting a project that still has one.
For whatever reason, be it luck, tenacity, or a contract with an eldritch god, they're still around[0].
but it's easier then ever to build your own website
It's almost irrelevant though, right?Because the bigger thing is that the web itself is going away.
Kids don't browse the web. Most people don't browse the web.
People, particularly kids, use apps.
Let's suppose you could create a high-quality website literally at the speed of thought. For free.
Who would look at it?
(to be clear, I hate this state of affairs)
Or maybe it's the opposite, the fact that information is so easy to find, and everybody knows it, had devalued it.
But the hard stuff ? Because it's hard to find, it has some value. Maybe you could become better at your job, comparatively, and earn more money. Or develop a unique skill and gain self esteem. Or offer some helpful bit of info for someone, and help the relationship.
You seem to be mistaking the creation of layout with the creation of content and assuming, incorrectly, that one must be boring, uncreative or uninteresting to not want to put in the effort of manually creating an HTML page, maybe with a black starry background and some flames and a spinning skull gif. That because layouts have become homogeneous and centralized in services, content and the web itself must as well.
You don't think there's "weird" content on Youtube and Facebook? I would assert that there is more of it, and more of higher quality, than there ever was on the old web. Sure, there are real barriers preventing someone from creating their own website and hosting their own fan group or videos or whatever, but people don't do so because it's a waste of time when what they want to do is create content. Once making your own site no longer became necessary, it became a specialized interest.
I think the problem here is that content discovery and hosting have become complected. Most people reading Hacker News can figure out how to self-host a video, for example, but if it's to reach a mainstream audience, it must be on Youtube.
For my tastes, the original blogosphere of 2000-2008 was one of the finest things the human race ever created, and the intellectual stimulation of the debates has no equal in any other age. But also there was still plenty of weirdness. I'd extend the era of "early Web" all the way to 2008, and I'd focus on advertising as the thing that killed it. In 2000 advertising on the Web meant banner ads, which had the reputation of being over-priced and ineffective. Especially when the crash hit in 2001, many companies swore they would never again waste money on advertising on the Web. But Overture came up with the idea of buying keywords for specific searches, and then Overture was absorbed into Google and became the Google business model, and by 2007 or 2008 many businesses were willing to get serious about advertising on the Web. At which point advertising, as a business model, took off, and it helped drive the consolidation of the Web, and it helped give us the boring Web of today.
I should add, the worst aspects of the consolidation were driven, specifically, by the adoption of algorithms that are designed to maximize engagement, because the goal is to serve as many ads as possible. The algorithms have a deadening effect. To his endless credit, Clay Shirky sketched out some of the forces that were likely going to lower quality on the Web over time:
http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/powerlaw_w...
That was way back in 2003. The key passage is:
"Finally, there is no real A-list, because there is no discontinuity. Though explanations of power laws (including the ones here) often focus on numbers like "12% of blogs account for 50% of the links", these are arbitrary markers. The largest step function in a power law is between the #1 and #2 positions, by definition. There is no A-list that is qualitatively different from their nearest neighbors, so any line separating more and less trafficked blogs is arbitrary."
But this turned out to be incorrect:
"Third, the stars exist not because of some cliquish preference for one another, but because of the preference of hundreds of others pointing to them. Their popularity is a result of the kind of distributed approval it would be hard to fake."
The algorithms are designed to fake a kind of preference, or to distort those preferences, because of the desperation of the company to move higher on the power law curve.
The point is, Shirky pointed to a natural process, and advertising money provided a powerful incentive to hack that natural process and try to distort it for the benefit of the company.
Maybe you are aware of something I'm not, and there really is a campaign against weirdness that I just haven't seen, but it feels to me like you are trying to drag this topic down an unrelated political tangent. Please don't.
If there is a real campaign against weirdness on the internet, I'd genuinely like to know about it and where it's coming from.