Against an increasingly user-hostile web (2017)
neustadt.fr
neustadt.fr
It's kind of a shame that news delivery has come to this but the internet was never destined to make everything better.
It turns out, most people lack the knowledge, skill, or desire to be peers. They are far, far more comfortable as consumers.
Take the author's thought experiment for example: "You could buy a Raspberry Pi Zero today for less than 10€, connect it to the Internet, set up a chat server on it, give it a public address and the world would be able to connect to it and talk to one other." Ignoring for a second how hard it is to get an honest-to-God static IPv4 address... How many people actually want to do this? Set up their own chat software, buy their own RP0, maintain it? Play the game of cat-and-mouse with an entire Internet's worth of bad actors trying to break your server? "No thanks," say most actual users.
So the trend is towards consolidation under the flow of people offering doing the boring stuff in exchange for something, and most people end up on Facebook (or Twitter, or Reddit, or Tumblr, etc., etc.). Because having to adhere to FB's rules about breasts is a lot simpler than dealing with hackers pwning your open chat server.
How do we get past this seemingly-inherent difficulty in the infrastructure itself and the persistent threat of attackers?
In the context of today's tech stacks (possibly containerized daemons running on a userland and kernel written in C, designed in a time where the internet was not considered hostile) it's easy to see why the game is stacked against the owner of that RPi0, but maybe in a decade or so we'll see a great renaissance of operating systems design and we'll all be running devices designed from the ground up to operate in adversarial environments
> They are far, far more comfortable as consumers.
Yes, 100%.
>It turns out, most people lack the knowledge, skill, or desire to be peers.
A decent percent of the population LOVES this kind of challenge. That's why I ran a C64 BBS in 1986'ish. That's why I setup my own IRC server that is still running today. That's why I was running Linux back in 1994.
That's also why so many people work on cars as a hobby.
The desire to control the "thing-in-your-hands" is powerful, and the more $EvilCorp tries to turn everything into a toaster the more people will rebel against it.
You are correct that most people want stuff that "Just Works". Hell, the mental load needed to get people to do regular oil changes on their cars is too much; so we can't expect the hacker mentality from everybody. These walled gardens are dangerous, so we need to encourage resistance instead of dismissing it.
I think that's a separate topic from this article. But if they are, the problem remains: what's to be done about it when the incentives are so heavy towards consolidating behind service provision over becoming one's own service provider?
I was listening to a podcast yesterday, and one of the hosts expressed this similar feeling, except he came from the opposite end of the spectrum—someone who has been deploying, maintaining, and working on Internet infrastructure for a while. Dealing with these headaches for an extended amount of time will probably nudge you to favour centralisation.
He argued in favour of moving the entire tech stack to the cloud and paying a fee, instead of deploying and maintaining anything on-premises, in no small part because of the cat-and-mouse game you describe. Paraphrasing, "I'm just paying for a service, if something breaks in the cloud it's not my problem to fix."
Against an Increasingly User-Hostile Web (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23334463 - May 2020 (163 comments)
Against an Increasingly User-Hostile Web - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15611122 - Nov 2017 (503 comments)
I'm kind of put off at the suggestion to use BAT to regain privacy(like blockchain is a cure-all for everything cyber) but then again, was this written in 2017?
Overall i agree with much of the essay, though i have a few nitpicks, like i'm not sure i feel quite so optimistic about the state of open-source browsers Chromium and Firefox(i am using Firfox).
Also, don't use YouBoob.
have i forgotten anything?
If that is the case, then I feel less comfortable with the idea that this is simply evil corporations commoditizing users.
Rather, I think the more nuanced explanation takes into account the fact that the web's users today (now at 5 billion people) and the people shaping its content (eg marketers, designers, business people, etc.) simply have a very different set of values than those active at the web’s infancy.
In other words, perhaps it has become democratized...it's just that that means it looks very different than you would prefer it.
I think in time social media and hostile web will be seen as a similar public health concern. It's already recognized in the data the ill effects on mental health that these dark patterns have on people, and the unprecedented power of manipulation made possible by social networks. It's hard right now because Facebook et al today are what Phillip Morris et al were then: powerful beyond belief due to extreme profit, lobbying, and regulatory capture.
I'm an optimist, so I hope eventually we have our surgeon general moment for social media and the hostile web, and expert voices are heard over those of the monied interests who lobby solely for the continuous growth of their cash cow.
I get the impression that the GDPR is ushering in the surgeon general moment that you mention. It's slowly starting to improve the health of the web. The latest rulings may even finally kill the cookie banner. Hallelujah.
However, to say, "most people will come to the same conclusion I have given enough time and evidence" seems a little naïve, and overlooks the spectrum of preferences that people have for the various things developers consider "hostile."
For example, while a lot of developers (myself included) love the minimalism of, say, Hacker News and hate the bloat of, say, nytimes.com, I think it's unfair to call nytimes "hostile" to the user. Frankly, it doesn't grate the typical user that much and the decisions made by NY Times designers/developers reflect that reality.
I think a similar argument can be made about privacy. Some people would pay for a product that is private and without advertisements; others are fine with the tradeoff.
"Gladly" here seems like a stretch. No one is happy about slow ad filled webpages that make it hard to read the content they want, they aren't clamoring for pervasive tracking, or unnecessary restrictions. Most people hate those things, but they aren't aware of a reasonable alternative offering what they actually do want and are glad for (reliable email service, pictures of their grand kids, etc) so they tolerate the horrible abuses forced onto them and are grateful for what they can get.
The main difference I see is that most people online don't know that things could be any different. Many don't even realize how much more enjoyable their online experience would be if they simply installed an ad blocker (and used a browser that allowed them). To this day I run into people who honestly think that without pervasive advertising and surveillance capitalism the internet couldn't exist and no one would ever bother to create content for it. Folks who saw the internet in its early days know better, and can see what things have improved and what's gotten worse and how much potential hasn't been realized.
A dog raised eating nothing but table scraps is never going to care as much as someone who is forced to eat them after once having a seat at the dinner table.
Obviously people would prefer, for example, a YouTube that is free, without advertisements, private, etc. But, my point is that developers tend to have different preferences than the general population and, thus, we shouldn't be surprised that the Internet has evolved in a way that reflects those differences.
I think the thing the tech giants do really well, and the thing that is valuable to consumers, is they're very good at aggregating the content that we want. There just hasn't been a big "not evil" data aggregator to help us connect with each other.
s/we/advertisers/
We aren't their customers. Sometimes what we want and advertisers want align and you can see a lot of engagement and user happiness. When they don't, it's clear who pays the bills.
It’s still useful if supported by some browsers, no?
EDIT: I guess a counter-argument is that if it were a recognized standard you'd have an easier time arguing that respecting it might be a legal requirement/it would encourage such legislation. DNT was originally inspired by FTC comments in the direction that it would be good to have.
If they do, then they can opt in.
Biggest downside is that the DNT header is 1 more bit of fingerprinting surface.
That being said there are still some sites that support it, mostly smaller sites. For example if you set it when you visit by blog I skip loading analytics. I like analytics because it is interesting to see what posts are popular and who is referring me traffic, but I am more than happy to opt out the users who are against it.
While of course there are some exceptions, the crowd here seems generally aligned that these things are bad (I think they are all bad too). This, naturally, leads to the idea that there should be something done about it, and people try. Being probably more charitable than I need to be, but what is web3 but a massive project aimed at at least a few of these issues.
But either way, I don't want to argue with or naysay anybody who is trying to fix these things, or even just have ideas about it, but I am personally a total pessimist about this stuff. Basically, it seems rather clear to me that all these things cannot and will not be resolved on the implementation level, so to speak. We are totally at the mercy of the grand economic system that sustains these things, and there is no hope or reason for them to change, because the people with all the money are the ones that have any measure of influence to these matters, and they have that money precisely because of these issues.
It is structurally impossible to design your way out of capitalism, or program your way out, or talk your way out; even if its just the internet part of it you really want to fix. You will not be able to convince people to divest from it, and while you may gain some ground proselytizing changes in lifestyle, changes in how we individually use these things, you will always be paddling against an absolutely huge current of finance capital. Short of economic changes that are completely outside the particular problem domain that these kinds of posts tackle, there is nothing at all to be done.
I just don't see how things will get better, and that's ok, it is quite literally an unprecedented global social order that connects and generates these things, the very same one that gave us all the good things too.
I know it sucks, and it is grim, but best not set yourself up for further disappointment. This is what technology is and will be; for as long as the people who develop this stuff and the people who buy the servers and even the ruffian scammers live in a world where things cost money, and profit == success.
It's best to simply recognize this, and do what you can for yourself and your loved ones to survive despite it all.
Absolutely! This is why we need good legislation. Tech issues will never be solved by tech builders. All tech measures invariably have a tech counter-measure. We've been round this loop so many times over the last two decades. It's a Sisyphean nightmare.
> It is structurally impossible to design your way out of capitalism
This is what good legislation can do for us. The only problem is it takes a lot longer to introduce good legislation than it takes to build bad tech. I'm optimistic that we're approaching the end of the bad tech era.
> Short of economic changes that are completely outside the particular problem domain that these kinds of posts tackle, there is nothing at all to be done.
I reckon legislators in the EU would disagree. They are doing a lot and it's starting to work.