The Antisocial Network: How the 90s Internet Died Like Diaryland (2014)
vice.com
vice.com
Hacker news is a good example of this that's persisted, actually.
But I'm hopeful we get some social networks that are more like the old web in their architecture.
also they're ruining the experience with attempts to monetize constantly in your face
Gone are the days when the "owner" of a channel or name was the person who got there first (or the person who was friends with a server admin), and DCC chats and file transfers, clever customizable scripts that would alter the entire interface to be closer to one's liking, a wide choice of clients, alternate nicks to use today because someone else was using yours (maybe deliberately, maybe not), and with netsplits just adding an element of chaos to the mix, and a seemingly-universal avoidance of getting money involved in the game at all.
(And maybe we're better without some of those aspects, but it's still not the same.)
for now matrix seems to be the closest to this experience (but still not quite)
That’s exactly how discord servers are made
> clever customizable scripts that would alter the entire interface to be closer to one's liking, a wide choice of clients
While not official, discord has several third party clients. The discord client is an electron app, so it’s just using discords api.
Not to say discord is perfect or the be all end all, but it shows a strong trend back towards real time interaction and away from posts. I hope matrix picks up when discord starts playing ads.
But Discord "servers" are completely different things compared to either IRC servers or IRC channels.
"Apples and oranges have similarities" is a cool story and all, but they're still apples and they're still oranges.
>While not official, discord has several third party clients. The discord client is an electron app, so it’s just using discords api.
IRC never really had this "official" or "first-party" problem to contend with at all. After it escaped the University of Oulu, people all over were creating their own incarnations of both clients and servers -- and running them independently, without centralized control. (This happened over the span of only a few months.)
>Not to say discord is perfect or the be all end all, but it shows a strong trend back towards [...]
...something that is useful and fun, and that is not like IRC.
Socially it's OK, as a piece of software it's dire.
The magic was due to the friction involved. Getting into a chatroom required effort. Getting the necessary programs via CD or floppy disk. Getting your modem working with the computer, dialling up, the godawful screeching. Navigating the weird interfaces and novel programs. Then boom, you'd be chatting with people from the other side of the world, like meeting aliens from across the galaxy. They would be (mostly) nice, mature and interesting, having also navigated the friction to be there.
I remember sitting with my elder brother in a quiz chat room, full of knowledgable and intelligent people. He was using an encyclopedia book (imagine!) as a source of questions, trying to appear intelligent. They had none of it and quickly called out our ruse! Then I asked a question about NURBS which I'd been studying, and received praise for a great question.
It all demanded effort, but rewarded it at the same time.
I don't know how you can collectively go back to that.
We might get some of that friction back if remote attestation succeeds in ruining the Internet for those of us who rely on free software. Connecting with any community will be trickier over mesh networking or whatever else we're left with.
> Before Facebook or Twitter, there was Diaryland. But it’s creator just wasn’t a Zuckerberg and it faded into oblivion.
I think that this is because English ortography is highly nonphonemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonemic_orthography
It's an interesting topic!
When it becomes socially unacceptable to insist on standards and correctness, people either don’t learn how to write properly - or they are cowed into silence when making corrections.
It is also just disgraceful and disrespectful toward something as magnificent and powerful as language, akin to scribbling on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. It’s one thing to know the rules and intelligently break them in a novel way, but the lack of correctness we’re talking about is merely laziness.
Just to reiterate here: the issue isn’t so much about minor unintended errors, it’s about the attitude that minor errors are acceptable and that aspiring for some kind of excellence is discouraged.
Yes, and spelling errors don't really matter to express yourself.
> disgraceful and disrespectful toward something as magnificent and powerful as language
If language wants to take that up with me, send him or her over to my place and I'll beat 'em up! But seriously, language is a tool, it's not a work of art. Things you make with language can be a work of art, so go read those instead of the misspelled crap that drives you to this level of anger.
> it’s about the attitude
You need to chill about other people's attitudes. You cannot affect other people, and you shouldn't let them make you see red like this. Other people's opinions and attitudes are none of your business, frankly.
“It’s none of your business. Don’t worry about other people. Why are you so angry?” Etc.
I speak English and am a part of a culture that speaks English. That gives me some extremely minor influence on that culture, as it does for you and anyone else. So I certainly can “affect other people.”
Is it so hard to believe that some people like nice things, and that creating and maintaining nice things often requires adhering to certain rules and regulations, rather than unquestioning acceptance of the selfish whims of every individual?
People act like this about folks who police arbitrary standards because it's distasteful. English is what the whole body of humans who speak English make it, not some random Council of English Grammar. Anytime I write or say anything, it's English, no matter if I fucked the grammer or speeling up.
There should not be a monopoly on communication. Some people simply don't have the ability to do perfect English grammar. Neurodiverse people can have trouble saying the right thing or using the write words. I hope you understand that not only do people hate "grammar police" because you're annoying, but also because not everyone can, needs, or wants to speak perfect English.
In closing: stop being pedantic, no one likes it. I hope all my errors keep you up at night.
I'm not responding further, this conversation has run it's course.
When it becomes socially unacceptable to insist on standards and correctness, people either don’t learn how to write properly - or they are cowed into silence when making corrections.
You're wrong there.
Also, kinda inadvertently proved the parent's point: that people rush out of the woodwork to cow everyone else into silence.
> There should not be a monopoly on communication.
So why are you trying to enforce your standards on someone else?
Dude, he can speak all the proper English he wants. I’m not enforcing anything on anyone, I’m saying keep your nose out of other peoples grammar. You people give me a migraine daily, Jesus H Christ. I’m done here, you folks are insane.
Does this not indicate, to you, that you're holding a significant minority opinion? While neither significant minority or significant majority opinions are automatically wrong/right, if you're reacting this strongly to everyone around you, the only common factor is you.
IOW, when I find that I am at odds with everyone around me, I re-examine whether or not the problem is me: did I incorrectly read the room?
For example, sarcastic comments on reddit r/programming garners no real attention from the readers, while the same comment on HN gets downvoted.
What I am trying to say is, read the room.
BTW: you are reacting pretty emotionally to my posts, which are all (as far as I can tell, anyway) devoid of any emotion or personal remarks. GP's original complaint was also, as far as I can tell, devoid of any anger or other emotion. Your reaction was, to me, very angry with no real reason why this was so.
Even then - yes, if you want to treat it as purely a pragmatic thing, then it’s kind of important to everyone to have the same set of rules to follow. Unless you want a church comprised of people that can’t communicate with each other because their language isn’t standardized?
This already happened in the 19th century, when spoken languages had many orthographic variations. The reason we have rules like the ones we do now is because it was a problem that needed to be solved. When you have fifty different ways of writing grammatical rules down, it becomes difficult to communicate.
Uh, you mean "standardised"? :-P
My kid is learning to read right now and the amount of exceptions I keep tripping over is crazy. And then you get things like Jabberwocky where undefined words never seen before were a large part of the point.
Things need to be "standardised enough" for the message to get across, but I'd cry if it were a 100% completely detailed specification.
for everything else, there's "its"
I believe that will get you out of 99% of the "it's vs its" problems you find in day to day life.
Bonus: If you're almost sure you need "it's" but not totally, just read the sentence as "...blah blah IT IS blah blah..." and if that doesn't make sense use "its" instead.
Edit: Some would gatekeep English, I don't personally care except that it seemed to give you a lot of stress and I hate to see someone upset, truly, so I thought I might help. I have a lot of trouble with grammar rules, too, so I have certain ways of thinking that I figure could help you and others. In reality, its or it's will read the same in your head and have further context as you read, so it doesn't really matter.
> for everything else, there's "its"
"it's" can also mean "it has".
Maybe the fact that english is so damn flexible with so many exceptions and patterns I just saw what was intended and rolled with it without even registering?!?
The top comments are going nuts over "it's" ?!? Really? I didn't even blink.
When the top comments talked about the error I reread the line a few times and saw zero issues with it.
The words flowing out of my brain say it is a "referential possessive" IE "it" in this case refers to the last noun referenced, and it has a singular relationship bound to the creator.
Yes it reverses the traditional concept of ownership (normally the creator owns the product) but that is the whole point - the website seemed to have a life of it's own and has been a burden/boon to the creator these past many years - so who really owns who in that relationship?
not tldr but provocative thought derived: why insist that "it's" as a possessive is wrong, when it follows an existing pattern (john's, everyone's) and speech doesn't make the distinction?
Then if a grammar discussion comes to a conclusion (as decided by the forum owner/editor-in-chief) it gets enforced on main threads thenceforth.
(my reply would go on the meta layer)
Though youtube promoting videos that make money is an unsurprising feedback loop.
Here's the instruction manual used by Facebook, Twitter, and everyone else:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
I'm impressed that Diaryland didn't decide to grind up its users and turn them into money. For that reason alone, it is immediately (and probably permanently) superior to Facebook and Xitter.