Have you noticed how much shit the internet has become now? (2007) | Hacker News Reader

Have you noticed how much shit the internet has become now? (2007)

old.sage.moe

74 pointssen_armstrong60 comments

> > Geocitites

> Oh yes, the 90's was so much better...

Yes they were, because geocities didn't control your search results and did not force you to donate 10 seconds to some creepily targeted ad before serving any multimedia experience.

I'm not going to say technology was better, nobody misses Realmedia, but the internet was more like a street than a mall. You could look at some weird art or look at some interesting offers, it was up to you.

Now you have the illusion of autonomy in a carefully crafted walled garden of ads. Or rather: freedom is more easily found offline.

You don't remember intrusive popup ads that took over the whole screen?

How about the pop-under ads that sat back there behind your browser just waiting to shock you with something stupid when you closed your browser window. Good times.

Yes, and I miss them every day.

The ads were sleazy and brazen and right in your face trying to dragnet as many people as possible into buying something 99.999% had no interest in. Not like now, where massive dossiers are built on you automatically and you're tracked all over the internet by ad companies regardless of the steps you take as an individual to convince yourself you have privacy (like VPN/Private Relay/Incognito/Tor).

> where massive dossiers are built on you automatically and you're tracked all over the internet by ad companies

...that still utterly fail to provide relevant ads. This is my pet peeve - I periodically disable adblocker and - suprise, no surprise - 100% of ads I see are irrelevant to me. I can even see how they're trying to target me, but they're totally missing what I really want or interested in. "Personalized" news feeds are sensationalist click-bait crapfests with accidentally useful local news (just by the virtue of local news being more relevant, in general). Book recommendations only work in "more from the same author I've read and liked" category. Summing it up, those massive dossiers aren't seem to be worth shit.

Either the industry needs to drastically ramp up their models' complexity (and maybe something will start to happen - although I wonder about the economy of this) or maybe someday they will have to admit all those profile data hoards were the new tulips.

The Internets of old at least hadn't pretended that ads were "useful" or "relevant". There typically was no positive quality to them, except for honest "this shit brings site owner (or host) some money".

> Yes they were, because geocities didn't control your search results and did not force you to donate 10 seconds to some creepily targeted ad before serving any multimedia experience.

What? Do you remember webrings? How absolutely riddled with shit-tier spam they were? Geocities drove those.

IIRC, webrings tended to be stuck at the bottom of the page. They didn't pop up or over the content.

Weird. I remember them being groups of sites sharing similar subject matter that would all link to each other, so when you found one, you found them all. You may have experienced that differently.

Just recently my wife came back home telling me about some tablet computer she has never ever seen before. I think she has googled for it on her phone. What do you know - my Facebook showed a few ads of that device - on that day. I've never heard about it before. I never searched for it and I never searched for a tablet even - I don't use them. Is this now the new normality - palantiring through databases? Is it OK for Google to leak data to Facebook?

I've always read comments like this and just assume it's confirmation bias on two levels:

1. Out of the 1000s of ads you see every day, at least one of them might coincidentally relate to something you talked about. You don't notice all the ads that are wildly irrelevant.

2. Even if you personally didn't have a hyper-relevant ad experience, out of the 1000s of HN readers that might comment a reply, one of them surely did. You just might be the one lucky guy that got your hyper-relevant ad of the day.

IDK, I think it is plausible they might be joining by IP or deeper connections. I've seen some ads that aren't relevant to me but are for something my partner was looking at on a different device.

It's probably simpler than this - advertiser just runs a campaign with some broad criteria (like income estimate based on IP-geolocated ZIP code) that both people in the same household fit. No surprise the same ad that one person had seen (and remembered) will be eventually shown to the other.

years ago I moved back to my hometown in South Dakota after a few years in Washington. my mom asked me to pick up some groceries for her and gave me her credit card to pay for it. I bought the groceries and, additionally, the first Red Bull I'd had in at least a year, using her credit card. within an hour, I got a notification from that one Google app thing where you answer survey questions for Play Store credit (not sure if it still exists), asking what my opinion of Red Bull was.

to reiterate:

- I had just moved halfway across the country

- this was the first Red Bull I had purchased in at least a year

- I made the purchase using a credit card other than my own, which was in no way connected to any bank account that was connected to me

- there should have been nothing connecting me to my purchase

I uninstalled the app immediately after that. sure, maybe it was some strange coincidence, but there's been far too many strange coincidences like that to make me anywhere near comfortable with this shit.

another time, years ago, I was talking to someone about how I needed to get a new pair of cheap earbuds, and within a couple hours an Amazon ad for this specific thing appeared in my Twitter timeline.

additionally, I just got married a couple weeks ago, and my wife and I immediately started seeing ads for sexual stamina tablets in our social media feeds—thanks, evil advertising apparatus, I thought I was doing okay :/

There's household device linking. One reason, streaming services/smart tvs want you to link phone/stream from phone. And all those services that want your phone number to verify/provide "2 factor". Yeah, they're totally not doing that to link phone and sell for future targeted ads.

There's many other ways devices can be linked, addresses of bills for instance.

Co-worker posted to company chat that they had failed to make some payments and then had got phising mail for their bank. Wondering was this linked. Later someone pointed out that phising had come before those failures. So was completely unrelated in reality.

All the conspiracy theories out of the window...

There is a much less malicious explanation here.

If that tablet company had very recently begun an internet marketing campaign, across multiple ad networks, target approximately your demographic, then it's wholly reasonable that you and your wife would independently see ads for it.

An analogy to what you're suggesting is that this person and their wife each drove past the same bill board at different times.

I think the thing that most people would really find tragic and scary is that we're all far more predictable and homogenous than we'd like to believe.

I've always made the statement to friends and associates that google knows far more likely what I am to do 'tomorrow' than I do. Always said half in jest, and half in acknowledgement that they have been tracking to actions physically and online for.. a decade?

It's a low key way of chatting about huge datasets and the pattern matching they can provide to computers that we as individuals simply can't keep mental track of due to scale.

We are not as unpredictable as we all believe our tiny flower selves to be.

You and your wife's phones are almost certainly tied together in multiple databases that adtech companies (especially the quieter tiers below Google/FB themselves) maintain and sell. And then you get re-targeted for ads you or her see, or ads based on things you or her see (retargeting was a really big thing back when I was in the industry, since behavioral prediction wasn't quite living up to the hype - so just re-show stuff you already think is relevant! I'm sure you've seen stuff like "here's thirty other lightbulbs" after you buy one lightbulb on Amazon in the past decade.)

Here's how it worked ~12 years ago: At some point you almost certainly have used the same home internet connection. A cookie associated with some account(s) of hers gets associated with that IP. Same for some account(s) of yours. Find IPs that over small time frames only have a handful of distinct users to filter out coffeeshops and such. Bam, likely family or roommate connection. Some sticky "supercookie" stuff or similar gets set so this can be both resurrected even when cookies expire (through like Etag cache headers or whatever) and then there's a lot of behind-the-scenes ad network offline-cookie-syncing.

One of the companies in that web partners offers ads on FB, another runs ads on Google, she searches and click something on your wife's phone (at this point regardless of network), it gets tied to you too.

It could be more innocuous but tracking same-household, cross-device for retargeting... all that is really old hat at this point.

I intentionally moved my career pretty far from ad-tech in the past decade, but from what I've heard in adjacent convos and such is that the newer developments include some of the newer platforms like smart TVs into all that old cross-device fun, too. Both as data source and ad display destination. A lot of TVs phone home about what you watch, even - like https://clinch.co/clinch-partners-with-samsung-ads/ There's a million ad-tech companies out there, they aren't all just writing real-time-bidding algorithms for traditional display ads.

Having worked with ad networks, publishers, and advertisers, it’s incredibly clear that ad targeting is barely this intelligent.

But the serendipity it can create is truly wild.

There's nothing particularly "intelligent" in any of the stuff I described - "see common device/profile/IP/whatever, make link."

Tracking is easy, intelligent personalization is hard. But tracking alone takes a lot of constant investment with tech development and arms race and all.

This is really interesting. I would buy a short book describing and explaining this privacy-related stuff the way you write about it.

But every time I read something like this, I am puzzled how they can have so much information and yet be so dumb. One example (but I could give you many): I like cycling and I subscribe to some cycling-related YouTube channels (Lanterne Rouge, Dylan Johnson - normal stuff, informative, bits of light humor now and then). YouTube keeps recommending me one cycling channel I absolutely hate - it is as if it was designed to piss me off. Sensationalist, negative, clickbaity titles, made up doping allegations every other post, throwing up emoticons in titles, creepy thumbnails with syringes and distorted faces. I never watch those videos, I clicked "do not recommend this channel" multiple times, now I just leave YouTube immediately every time this appears. And somehow, with all the data they have on me and all that sophisticated AI, they still have not figured it out. How? Any explanation?

This happens to me too. I end up blocking the channels which works, no other signalling does the job.

I never saw much at all in terms of real, taste-level, user-based personalization beyond "keep hammering them with this one thing they clicked once" retargeting.

Everything is is by aggregate. So they can put you in a bucket with a bunch of other people with a similar footprint, and if 75% of people in that bucket convert when being shown that one you hate, you get to see it too.

Low-level optimization beyond that was rare at the places I worked.

"Sneaky but obvious" was way more common. And the browsers and platform vendors kept making it harder to do certain things, so it was a constant rat race to maintain the same level of browser tracking.

> Yes they were, because geocities didn't control your search results

No but altavista and metacrawler did.

Then there came google, heavily subsidised by vc money. Deep pockets. Then that turned out to be unsustainable and so they began controlling search results and showing excessive ads.

If we want an ad free internet we need to pay for services or have government provided alternatives.

There’s no in between i am afraid. Servers and engineers cost money.

I wouldnt mind spending 10£ a month for a proper search engine service with a means to stay connected with friends. That would also reduce bot generated content.

If you paid for that it would be less than a decade before that company was also doing the same bullshit and also collecting a subscription. Look at what is happening to streaming. "Oh, $10/mo for basically all the content, that's a no-brainer." Now it's returning to the cable television experience with ads every 10 minutes.

Very true. And when that happens i will gladly switch.

But people didn't rely on search, as much, back then. I belonged to a few forums, and I'd visit one or two portals, almost every day as my starting point on the Web, and from there people would be recommending things, and I'd follow that. All through the 90s and into the early 00s, it was sites such as Everything and Digg and Slashdot that drove all traffic. Search-as-in-Altavista was ineffective, so people didn't rely on it. We all relied on certain forums, and those drove traffic in a more organic way. Of stuff we have nowadays, Reddit almost recreates that old world, but Reddit now operates in a context where online traffic has concentrated into 2 sites: Google and Facebook. There is no way to escape the current context, that traffic is now massively concentrated. There was a certain freedom to the 90s, in that no site could reliably capture even 1% of the Web traffic, a situation that we idealistically thought would last forever.

And there was literally more on the internet. I could search for a book, and get a ton of information on it from a ton of different perspectives. Now I get results page after results page of links to the same copy over and over again, and tons of people trying to sell me something or to trick me into downloading a trojan. At some point, all the search engines decided that they didn't even need more than five or six pages of results (that they silently repeat.) I mean, they gave you the Wikipedia entry and a link to the Goodreads page as the first two results after their ads - what else could you possibly want to read? Are you a terrorist or something?

The only countervailing events were Google's book scanning project, the founding of archive.org, and the growth of Wikipedia. Google Books is a shadow what it was, was under attack, and was largely an AI project. Archive.org is in danger, and had to limit access to 95% of its content; I can't download a book from the 40s that has been out of print since then, and where everybody who was involved with it is dead. Wikipedia is falling apart under the influence of paid editors and people attacking other people through edits to their biographies.

It's getting to the point where it might be better not to be on the web. I don't like it. Even this web 2.0 commenting on everything seems like a pointless outlet for frustrations. And all it does is make various files on you, in dozens or hundreds of hands, grow slowly.

edit: I don't want to diminish how awesome it is to have a good proportion of 17th-19th century nonfiction online. It's nuts.

I really like the street versus mall analogy. It used to be way more organic, and now its heavily curated to suit a specific purpose (consumer capitalism). Even if many things have improved, it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.

> I'm not going to say technology was better

The Internet was better but the technology was worse.

“It is said that what is called "the spirit of an age" is something to which one cannot return. That this spirit gradually dissipates is due to the world's coming to an end. For this reason, although one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation.”

Tsunetomo Yamamoto, Hagakure: The Book of the Samurai via goodreads

This goes well with "Technology is an independent variable" by Stanislaw Lem. Yet so many think they can control it.

The purpose of posting this may be to reiterate that old canard about "twenty years ago, people were saying what we're saying now, therefore it isn't true." If not, I apologize for assuming so. In any case, my reading is, it was true in 2007, and it is much worse now. The predictions about centralization were incorrect only in the names of some of the players, and in not having the benefit of knowing about the role of mobile devices in consolidating and controlling attention.

If anything, it shows that the blogspam repost problem still hasnt been solved. Still no browser extension that finds the original and replaces all rehosts with it.

> Still no browser extension that finds the original and replaces all rehosts with it.

You'd think that'd be a job for search engines, but they don't seem to care about the product.

No matter where I get linked from, Reddit, Facebook, an email, if nbc.com reposted an AP/Reuters story either verbatim or poorly summarized with no additional information, I just want to be sent to the AP/Reuters story.

Techmeme.com hand selects either the first or best source for each headline. Something community maintained like that, where any duplicate story redirects to the primary, unless it’s a follow up or editorialized comment that has actual substance.

Relatedly, some old quote from the Romans or Greeks is often brought up where someone laments youth behavior as lazy and immoral, and it’s referenced as proof that old(er) people always say that so it doesn’t mean anything.

However, isn’t it possible that they were on a downward trajectory, and we are too? And that at other points in time, not referenced, old(er) people may have felt differently?

Considering that the old quote is Cicero criticizing pre-dictator Julius Caesar for the way he wore his toga (and not, you know, all the things that Sulla might've put him on the Proscription Lists for), I'd argue its more that old people consistently criticize the wrong thing about young people, focusing on the superficial, rather than the substantive.

EDIT because I forgot to add:

This missing the mark is rarely because there's something intrinsic about old people and other people's haircuts. Its more that we are generally raised to respect (as authorities) our elders, and sort of subconsciously expect that people younger than us will in turn grant us the same respect. So the criticism basically comes down "they're not giving me what's due to me".

Meanwhile, if the criticism leveled against Caesar came down to "he's waaaaay too ambitious, and has already shown a propensity for ignoring social mores to get what he wants", then Cicero's criticism might feel more prescient, and less like an old man shouting at a cloud.

All of that said, its actually really hard in the moment to identify what will be dangerous to society before it comes up. So maybe Cicero had a feeling in his gut, but all he could come up with is "he's kind of sloppy with his toga"

Actually, I am thinking of a different old quote:

“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”

This could show that older people always think these things about younger people. Or, it is possible that the respective cultures were in a period of decadence both then and now, and that the views of older people are at least somewhat accurate or meaningful.

Wikiquote has some interesting things to say on that [0].

Given that it is, at best, paraphrasing what Plato claims infamous scold and gadfly Socrates said, I'm inclined to reject the quote in its entirety. Anything Socrates is quoted as saying has to be viewed through the lens of "what does Plato want the reader to get out of this?". The answer, invariably, is whatever it takes for the reader to abandon Athenian democracy and take up Plato's weird mandatory warrior-athlete-philosopher society.

0. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socrates#Misattributed

worth noting that the Roman and Greek empires did, in fact, fall

'07 was the height of Google's cat-and-mouse game with webspammers. It'd degrade to near-uselessness for a month or two, suddenly get a ton better, repeat. This went on though the whole of the middle years of the '00s.

'08 or '09 is when they seemed to surrender that fight, and just give up on indexing the entire Web. Major sites got a huge boost, and a great deal of the Web seemed to just drop off the index entirely. Google's never been really good since.

Coincides with the iPhone, then the beginning of Android, and the rise of mobile overtaking desktop.

Also IIRC right around the same time they totally abandoned "don't be evil" and started doing ads inline with search results, basing much of their future revenue on tricking unwary users.

[EDIT] They might also have switched from their text-only ads to being a more ordinary, crappy web advertiser not long after, which started to partially align their interests with webspammers, which may explain why they didn't mind yielding the whole middle (if that makes sense) of the search-result space to them.

It is interesting to see that every time there has been another layer of commercialization on the internet everyone thinks it was better before.

Linking a 4chan archive on here is a uuhh bold move, I think its a fun snapshot of the time but still

I read mostly 2 web sites that look the same: HN and /pol/.

Orange, text based, almost anonymous.

But to my knowledge, no one has ever been able to triforce on HN. It's like a perpetual summer.

▲

▲ ▲

Easy, see?

   ▲
  ▲ ▲

I was about to correct you and ask if you meant Eternal September, but that's at least two Eternal Septembers older than the one you're talking about.

/pol/ ????????

oh honey no

Less people pearl clutch over Chans than you think. Most of the shock is performative.

Kind of like radio (hello, ClearChannel) or TV.

There are still a few holdouts from corporatism. On radio, there's KKUP (online at https://kkup.org/) which has no ads and does all kinds of weird shit.

We need the equivalent of the 88 MHz - 92 MHz band on FM that's reserved for non-profit stations, and you know that in a strange city you can dial around and find something there. Equivalent things do exist on the Web, but it needs to be easier to find them.

Yes, you do get religious stations and NPR, but there are also college radio stations and oddballs like KKUP.

Google and search in general is definitely worse than 10 years ago. It seems like I can’t find anything useful now. Years ago a few searches could turn up very arcane and niche data. Nowadays it’s like it never even existed.

As someone who came of age in the era the OC waxes nostalgic about, I can't find a lot to recommend about this post, nor do I think it's accurate. From where I sit, the internet today is richer, more diverse, and more accessible than it was in the 90's, the 00's, or the 10's.

Consider that one of the top links on HN is the OpenMW project. What a great project. If I want to go deep on that, there's a forum with a wiki, a discord and an IRC and a public gitlab.

I don't want to go deep on that. But there are literally hundreds of thousands of communities into which I could dive deep, some of which I do. I've been involved in home hydroponics groups, poker forums, online chess study groups, an Everquest emulation community, community-run RTS and fighting game tournaments.

I've dug into sites hosting side-by-side translations of the Tao Te Ching, Soto Zen communities, forums for recovering from addiction.

I've found music and books and events that I never otherwise would have found.

I've learned to read rudimentary Japanese using web apps. I've vastly improved my classical guitar form using YouTube channels.

... and on and on and on. I'm on this wonderful internet every day for much of my day, co-creating communities with other people.

There are deep, rich, giving communities everywhere on the internet today, not gated behind walled gardens. I wouldn't describe these as "shit" (or the homophobic slur the author seems think constitutes peak internet diction).

I'm glad these communities also existed in the 90's. Personally I grew up into things like the Quake 2 modding community and MUDs. Great stuff. I'm glad the internet has continued to grow and thrive and has evolved into what it is today.

edit: correction, by "more accessible" I meant "discoverable." I genuinely don't know whether or not the internet is more or less supportive of visually impaired users, for example (I can imagine it being far worse).

He was very right. And if he's around in 2023, things are immensely worse than 2007 too.

Internet, just as cinema, television, books, people, travels, etc needs you to become aware of what you want from it. Honestly, if we consider the Internet[/the Web] as a kind of information utopia, it can definitely be!

I will cite a quote [that I think is] from William Gibson: "The absolute most important skill to master in those days is to find the correct words to type in Google". I will add: "don't let anyone choose them for you !!!"

Well "hacker news" is basically a VC promo - does anyone care?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com