Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajhurliman | Hacker News Reader

All of these self-proclaimed “platforms” need to be regulated: no participation in your own platform (Amazon Basics), or at least no self-preferential treatment, caps on platform usage fees closer to 3-5%, neutral and open source search algorithms, limits on advertising.

I’m a capitalist at heart but this is anti-competitive, it’s closer to feudalism than capitalism.

View on HN

We're perilously close to an internet that is entirely siloed, so instead of AOL we end up with two or maybe three more or less incompatible versions of AOL, and with far more control over the lives of their customers than AOL ever had.

There is some chance that it will end up with only two of these players depending on who reaches the point where they have enough free cash that they can further consolidate, assuming regulators don't step in.

Google on the one side, Apple on the other, with AWS owning retail and Microsoft absorbed by either Apple or Google (unless their OpenAI bet pays off further). FB up for grabs and Twitter will die.

It could easily happen. So, which side of the web do you want to be on? I want to be on the open web, not in some walled garden, no matter who owns it.

Unless those companies are stopping someone from visiting different domains, I would not describe that as the internet being siloed.

The most popular destinations on the internet may be “siloed”, or most business will occur in the silos, but the internet itself is as accessible as it ever was.

This makes no sense. These companies dictate what you see, when you see it and how you see it. They are just not throwing their weight around as much as they could yet. But if Google decides that your website no longer exists it effectively doesn't exist any more.

I recall visiting websites before Google was even made. In any case, the internet does not only exist within Google’s search index.

For example, I can post a URL in this comment, and you would be able to visit it, even if Google did not keep it in its search index.

The only question is how much work do people want to do to spread knowledge of theirs or others’ website, and how much work do people want to do to find them.

And it is much easier these days than even pre Google, since there are very capable alternatives to Google (and ubiquitous broadband).

Good luck with that. If Chrome won't display it that's that for 45% of your possible visitors. If the domain-without-a-tld doesn't come up as the first link in your average browser that's another 40% or so, if your ISP doesn't like you or if your certificate is the wrong color (or your bits for that matter) then that's the remainder. To compare the web as it is today with what went before is a bit silly because we have moved on from there and the party that controls your browser, your search, your income, your document store, your email and your phone may well be one and the same.

I completely disagree with that. If the people can't access whatever they want to access or what they need isn't available at price/condition they can agree to they will just switch to something else. Just like when a shop starts charging too much or that it hasn't taken care of maintenance.

For now, it looks like they have no competition, but the foundation is here, it's just that the potential competitors are starved for ressource. Just a bit of redirection will get the ball rolling and a lot of choices will suddenly appear.

The only thing is that most people do not care and have very basic needs. We mostly shouldn't care about those people. They cannot for the life of them being interested in anything technical and will not make any effort to learn and use worthwhile tools. They also have very low interest in knowledge. So, they will follow without much questioning, I know this for a fact from all the servicing I do around me. They will do what you tell them, if you tell them Google or Chrome is bad, they will accept.

The problem is getting something as good as Google or Chrome. So far nothing really match...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com