Why Twitter is such a big deal (2009)
paulgraham.com
paulgraham.com
In a practical utility perspective Twitter was a pub/sub broadcast system in the social media space. It was slim, fast, and real time in a way the Facebook wasn’t, due to a 140 character limit. Yet, it never seemed to become more than 10% of Facebook and almost exclusively used only by people who were already heavy Facebook users.
I remember the optimism around Twitter in 2007 because it was immediately evident that it was addictive to certain personalities. Some people just had to broadcast absolutely everything they did, often irrationally. Most everyone else tried to find a use for Twitter but couldn’t. I know many early users that either abandoned or deleted their accounts before 2010.
Eventually it just became a text broadcast interface via their client. That is good for people who want to build a following, but nobody else found a use for it. In that regard YouTube is the Twitter replacement but YouTube had value otherwise that Twitter never could.
So what changed? Why did twitter eventually become so popular?
(Also Telegram and WhatsApp are a borderline case; they have the users, and they have social-network-like features, but most of the users are likely not _using_ the social-network-like features; they just use them as messaging apps).
The second tier is things like Snapchat, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, Pinterest, Quora; these are in the 300-600 million user range, so they're big, but you don't have the same sort of universal exposure.
You can see in the article above that even in 2013 they were talking about Twitter's rise to prominence beginning in 2008.
Twitter was/is a fantastic resource for one-to-many social media communication. Celebrities flocked to it. Media publications analyzed it and ran stories on the platform. The API used to be quite open and basically free so it plugged into countless apps and was often used in hackathon projects. Hash tags became signal for trending topics. Even the public '@' tag (don't 'at' me bro) basically came from Twitter (or was at least, popularized by it). It was a phenomenon. Reaching 10% of Facebook's reach is hardly anything to scoff at (who had hit 1 billion users around the same time), and dwarfed the population of nearly every nation on earth. Twitter had outsized influence on the public conversation because you could get a message out to millions from a single account, which wasn't possible with Facebook due to friend requests (at the time, Facebook was more purely a friend-to-friend network and pretty sure you were restricted to at most 5K friends).
Twitter didn't even require a login to view Tweets. Embedded views in other apps helped to cement its virality.
I'm not saying it wasn't popular, but it was not ubiquitous.
https://searchengineland.com/twitter-hits-100-million-active...
It was not as ubiquitous as Facebook, but it was certainly more ubiquitous than RSS by a long shot.
Basically anyone with a professional presence that involves talking to the public, publishing papers, blogs, open source projects, etc still uses Twitter to talk to the public. Lot of these people have a hidden or deactivated Facebook, but public Twitter.
How much more ubiquitous in this regard is Twitter than Facebook (as a percentage) and what real world impact does that number have?
People, in general, tend to invent their own reality. There are smart terms to describe that behavior from a variety of causes but dummies like me just tend to call it bullshit.
Had to google, might save someone time.
It took many years for Twitter to become valuable and has since lost most of that value. It did not become profitable until 2018 and then became negative again in 2021. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitter-statistics/
Twitter usage is also way down, but most analysts stopped using things like account numbers, message quantity, and visitor counts to account for any real concern years ago because most of it was determined to come from bots.
Twitter popularity is illusory. Its a broadcast system that the majority of its users, whether people or bots, solely sought to exploit for offsite metrics.
Regardless of what you think people used Twitter for, there are real-world consequences from people using Twitter to communicate with each other. The Arab Spring is probably the biggest example for that, where people used it for activism, while the governments tried to ban it and survive the uprisings happening all around the Arab world.
The use of social media (and Twitter specifically) is well studied as well, in case you're open to learning more: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=arab+spring
> Twitter has 421 million monthly active users, adding 20 million in 2023
It's as popular is its ever been, however, there's been some rotation in demographics I suspect.
Whether this is true or not depends a lot on the social circle you are talking about. I am aware of quite a lot of people who abandoned Twitter after it became more closed with respect to the API, but I am also aware of quite a lot of people who nevertheless did stay.
i wasn't in the super earlybirds users, but this is what i get from having used it. like any other social media really. trick people that its cool somehow and start shoving crap down all their senses you can reach.
platforms which don't do this, dont get big because they are kept small.
(maybe a bit cynical post, but i don't think its wrong.)
Some like Twitter better, others like facebook better. It's just different ambience.
Twitter / X punches above its weight (in terms of regular metrics like MAUs and revenue) in terms of cultural impact. One can argue that it was responsible for delivering the 2024 election to Trump. This may have never happened if its original founders had tried to control and monetize it too soon.
It’s also completely unreplicable today. There was a fun factor to it that justified starting out at zero followers—it was a game, so it was OK to start out at level 1–that isn’t there on any of the replacements. “Platform” has become some new kind of social credit score and no one enjoys it anymore. We either become “content creators” and get into that grind or remain obscure and hope our employers never bother to deanonymize us.
Twitter at the beginning you didn't know what it was going to be or what worked. Same with facebook and instagram. As time goes on these sites small features bring out their emergent properties of what 'works' there.
And once it has been 'figured out', it is not as fun. You know what you can expect there and people go there but it is no longer a dynamic feeling. Like watching the NBA today, it has been 'figured out'.
I think that may be what is the factor in the longevity of these platforms, once it is 'figured out', if what it is, appeals to enough of a large base.
Tik tok may have gone further because it never really was 'figured out' in that larger way. The algorithm really could give you wildly different content and different 'trends' would show up so it never reached that static boring point.
For these 'on the decline' sites you can almost predict exactly what you will see there and exactly what the discussions are. It is not longer an exciting TV show.
There was definitely a period in time where you could use Twitter as public infrastructure, you could push data from anywhere with HTTP to it, and read it the same way. The firehouse was free to use too at one point, with a large ecosystem of (some even FOSS) 3rd party clients.
But then they killed that, and the ecosystem basically evaporated over night. I could understand if you started using Twitter after that, you'd get that feeling you described.
Even at that time Twitter was not public infrastructure, but corporate-owned infrastructure that was temporarily a little bit more open than others regarding unofficial clients.
I thus know not one single person who at that time considered Twitter to be public infrastructure, since it simply never was.
I think you've missed his point. He doesn't mean a technical protocol, he means a conceptual one.
Not at all true, not just for myself (never was a heavy Facebook user, was a heavy Twitter user in the beginning), but for lots of people around me, especially fellow developers.
> Some people just had to broadcast absolutely everything they did, often irrationally.
Maybe we followed way different people, but I didn't see any of that stuff. Most of my feed was people launching projects, and technical discussions about various news/ideas.
> Most everyone else tried to find a use for Twitter but couldn’t. I know many early users that either abandoned or deleted their accounts before 2010.
Lots of governments found use for it seemingly, and the citizens. Various levels of government in Spain still sends out more information via Twitter+RSS than they do on their own websites, for some weird reason. And it's been like that for years now.
Fitting as well to use 2010 as an example, as that's right around when the Arab Spring was in full action, largely because of social media in general but particularly Twitter, which saw huge increases in user activity in the countries starting their revolts, where governments were scrambling to censor people yet Twitter remained available.
> Eventually it just became a text broadcast interface via their client. That is good for people who want to build a following, but nobody else found a use for it.
Yes, eventually Twitter became a pipe to push data through, but they didn't like that so they slowly killed the API by making a bunch of weird moves about it and shutting down 3rd party clients. Eventually, the only people left on the platform were people chasing followers, rather than people chasing stimulating conversations, which is what I got out of Twitter when I used it more.
It wasn’t just the OP who noticed people posting fluff. It was a meme for a while that some people would recite their day to day via tweets. I remember conversations from everyday people on not knowing what to post on the app.
Niche communities formed but its utility was limited beyond that as evidenced by the growth of FB, YouTube and Instagram while Twitter plateaued. U
I read them as broad generalizations too, just wildly incorrect ones based on my own perspective from having been a Twitter user at that time, even if they're broad generalizations.
Also if you start your comment with "Author is completely wrong" and then put a bunch of broad generalizations that don't match with people's own experience, expect those people to also share their own experience.
“I’m a twitter shitter!” - Penny Arcade, 2008
Also you can think of Twitter as a standalone spinoff of Facebook status updates user behaviour but with hashtags. I actually find Twitter more compelling than Facebook but somehow Twitter's management was able to ruin Twitter. Now we have not only Twitter but X, Threads, Bluesky and Mastadon. It is way too fragmented but imo they should all interop and work as an one ecosystem.
Just because it didn’t become SMS or reach Facebook scale doesn’t mean he was wrong.
The way nearly all sizable organizations think about public communication includes Twitter and it’s the de facto support channel for several industries.
Perception around Twitter in the late 2000s and early 2010s was completely different to what it was today or 5 years ago.
I remember the tech buzz around Twitter where every VC considered it the next big thing because everyone they knew was on Twitter. It was a really classic case of "bubble think" (to me).
Twitter has never gone mainstream. It's used as a system for press releases, journalists and a few other niches. I really wonder if the journalism niche will dry up given the security concerns of who can read their DMs but that hasn't happened yet.
Did you mean RCS instead of RSS? I can see it going either way.
In other words, every new thing was something that may have been before but it was "this is how things work from now on". The platform defines and upholds the character of interaction. Twitter and Reddit do that and as pg highlights how twitter recipients is by algorithm. (From OP: "where you don't specify the recipients.")
I have fond memories of writing HTML from magazines and in the eras before me it was handwriting text games into BASIC interpreters.
The authoritarian movements of the 20th century wouldn't have been possible without mass media. But it wasn't the profit motive that was the prime culprit for this enablement.
Ideologues found they had a powerful tool at their disposal to channel people's grievances towards an enemy, and to bind a large group of people behind this ideology.
The inventors of the printing press and the radio didn't intend for it to be used this way.
Well, at least the printing press was created to print the Bible - the "Gutenberg bible", named after its inventor, was the first mass produced book in the world [1], so it can be said that it was intended to get a large group of people behind an ideology.
Call me a cynic, but I really think that was the inevitable outcome. It's just flawed human nature. Yes, there are outliers - good people who make and keep that vision to the best of their ability. But the overwhelming majority will always be there to drive it towards the dismal outcome you're witnessing now.
This is the fundamental assertion of anarchism -- people generally like helping each other and like feeling useful. If basic needs were covered, we'd use most of our time doing things that felt meaningful, and those things would make everyone's lives better.
One risk we are facing now is that when most of the people alive have only seen the perversions of unregulated and unapologetic late-stage capitalism, they will think this is what it always has to look like. The impulse to switch to a polar opposite or burn everything down is ill advised but becomes hard to ignore.
This perverts capitalism so hard because you now end up with tens of trillions of dollars being dumped into the economy in horribly inefficient ways and so behaviors that make one likely to get some of this become far more economically relevant than just making the best product.
Our current economic system is obviously completely unsustainable at this point and may well end up being one of the shortest lived economic experiments ever. That's particularly ironic because, as you alluded to, for most of everybody alive today this is just how it's always been!
Correlation != causation. Yes, the end of Bretton-Woods certainly played its part, but there are other independent causes for most of the things that can be seen in the graphs - first and foremost, the oil crises of 1973 and later and the impact of the policies of Nixon, Reagan and Thatcher, as well as simple but massive technological progress that made the economical shifts (such as the decline in agriculture and industry as a share of the economy) possible in the first place.
Automation and IT in general are the largest drivers of the latter - more efficient and powerful diesel engines made a lot of farm labor all but redundant, and IT enabled constructing and orchestrating ever larger and larger things, all the way from machines to global sized corporations, and the resulting efficiency gains of scale were mostly looted by the rich elites.
It's not hard to deal with inflation for the wealthy. You will generally have substantial wealth invested in inflation resistant appreciating assets, businesses can pass the inflation on to the customer, and so on.
But for labor it's a different story. Not only do you suffer far more from price increases with little in the way of offsetting assets, but inflation allows wages to 'secretly' grow stagnant or even decrease.
What I mean is that since e.g. 2020, the CPI has increased by 18%. So if you're not earning at least 18% more, you're more earning less than you did in 2020.
Without inflation this doesn't work. Workers' raises would actually increase their real earnings.
It's not hard to see how this single issue causally drives much of what happened in 1971 (and beyond.)
Notably the excessive money printing began somewhat before 1971 which is what caused the default that eventually happened in 71.
Politically this ended up not working (no pun intended). People explain this by saying losing a job affects that person whereas inflation affects everybody, but personally I put it down to the right demagoguing inflation as the sign of an incompetent government (it turns out it was transitory and the result of supply shocks--maybe not a good reason to throw millions of people out of work).
We'll never know the counterfactual, but the US managed this economic environment better than any of its peers, so honestly I don't know what a good faith criticism would even look like.
At a first level analysis this sounds great because now you get even more dollars per car! But in reality that's not what happens. Instead US customers can't afford your cars anymore and so turn elsewhere and your economy, which is dependent upon the US, would start to decline and possibly even crash. So the solution? You print money and intentionally weaken your own currency - helping to eliminate the relative US inflation! Now the US inflation has transformed into real growth (for Americans) and you've 'imported' their inflation, but can at least continue selling your cars. So your economy stumbles on for another day while the US economy only grows larger.
But in contemporary times many of the factors that enable the US to export its inflation are gradually declining. And when you look at many of our economic indicators, without any particular 'superpowers', it's not so pretty. For instance our peers in debt:GDP ratio (4 worse, 4 better) are: Greece, Italy, Bahrain, Maldives, Laos, Cape Verde, France, and Bhutan. Not exactly the economic peers one wants.
The US printing money doesn't allow it to export its inflation, but rather exporting inflation allows the US to print far more money than other countries without comparable inflation. In fact we even relatively economically weaken other countries in the process of it.
This is why countries with comparable debt to GDP ratios are generally in very poor economic shape while the US is near its economic peak in most typical measurements.
But this superpower is fading in ways you presumably now understand, but the decades of money printer go whrrrr, and the unbelievable debt hole it left, remains.
Trying to handle a debt whose interest alone has now exceeded a trillion dollars a year is not going to be realistically possible without funny money or the emergence of some new economy booming industry akin to the birth of computing/internet.
I didn't see this dynamic outlined in the link OP provided, can you point it out or explain it? Are you just saying when the USD strengthens we have more ability to print money and thus weaken it? If that's case, from a monetary policy point of view, isn't that just avoiding deflation? Or from a trade policy point of view, don't our trading partners want us to print money to weaken the dollar and thus stop exporting inflation?
This line of argument is untethered from reality. Please explain why the US exported inflation pre-Bretton Woods (we totally did) and what you'd do to stop it (nothing, because this is the natural consequence of a currency strengthening, which occurs with or without a fiat system). Please explain why currencies fluctuate even when pegged to commodities (they totally did, deflation was a huge problem in the Great Depression).
> This is why countries with comparable debt to GDP ratios are generally in relatively poor economic shape while the US is near its economic peak in most typical measurements.
Here's a list of countries around the US' ratio:
- Singapore: 1.75
- Greece: 1.59
- Italy: 1.36
- Bahrain: 1.26
- Maldives: 1.21
- US: 1.21
- Laos: 1.15
- Cape Verde: 1.12
- France: 1.11
- Bhutan: 1.11
- Barbados: 1.07
- Spain: 1.06
- Belgium: 1.05
- Canada: 1.04
- UK: 1.01
Is your argument that France, Canada, the UK, Japan, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece, and Singapore are all some of the best places on Earth to live despite some deep economic dysfunction (that--again--has produced absolutely no ill effects)? Or are you gonna argue that Bahrain's major problem is their debt-to-GDP ratio?
> the US is near its economic peak in most typical measurements.
> But this superpower is fading in ways you presumably now understand
You can't have it both ways: either 1971 was the beginning of the end or we're currently at peak because of our unique (to be clear it's not at all unique) ability to export inflation. The only argument you (any anyone else on your side) has left is that an unspecified reckoning will come at an unspecified time.
To be less polemic, Piketty postulates that the kind of GDP growth we've experienced the last couple centuries is wildly unsustainable (he gets into like, galactic terms, pretty entertaining). It's likely that growth levels off, like it is in places like the EU, US, China, and Japan, and we'll need new economic policies that don't assume perpetual >5% annual growth. I would guess that means debt to GDP ratios actually start mattering, but I'm not that convinced economists know anything and I know even less than they do, so yeah.
A few hours ago you had no clue what it was, and skimming a few articles has not yet meaningfully improved upon that.
FWIW - I wrote this after starting to respond to the strong USD vs exporting inflation nonsense. Again you're having a 'I don't understand why destroyed homes cause tornadoes' moment.
I enjoy a good debate but this nonsense on loop paired with your somewhat bizarre belief that places like Japan are great to live (for average locals) is too much.
You can also see this with things like the minimum wage. In 1968 the federal minimum wage was $1.60. Inflation adjusted that's $14.42. Places like California/Washington think they're being progressive with their minimum wage ideas, but it's simply trying to take us back to before 1971, except with all of the problems that the 50 years in between have caused such that the quality of life that money will provids will likely remain dramatically lower than it would have provided in 1971.
The problem is, prices didn't fall (mostly due to corporate greed - corporate profits exploded in comparison with inflation [1]), and many people are worse off than they were prior to the pandemic, even after some of them got wage increases that in many cases didn't even come close to matching inflation.
The Biden administration could have done more to combat this but didn't, and Trump campaigned on that failure. The real issue is that the US desperately lacks any viable third party option which means, combined with the radicalization of the Republicans over the last decades, that there is no way of holding the Democrats accountable without electing ever more utter crazies.
[1] https://groundworkcollaborative.org/work/inflation-revelatio...
Sure, but again this is a political problem. I don't the WH was promising prices would fall; I think the Fed was saying they'd get inflation back to 2% while also balancing their employment mandate. People may have expected prices to go down, but again that's a political problem.
Full agree on the greed thing though, and that would have been an easy out for the WH: somehow publicly punish gougers.
> and many people are worse off than they were prior to the pandemic, even after some of them got wage increases that in many cases didn't even come close to matching inflation.
I'm parroting here, but didn't wage gains outpace inflation? Do you have different data? Are there other ways in which people are worse off (there might be)? My current understanding is that inflation wasn't a big deal, wage gains outpaced it, but Republicans demagogued it.
> The Biden administration could have done more to combat this but didn't, and Trump campaigned on that failure
Agree! The Biden admin was uniquely bad at politics.
> The real issue is that the US desperately lacks any viable third party option which means, combined with the radicalization of the Republicans over the last decades, that there is no way of holding the Democrats accountable without electing ever more utter crazies.
You lost me here. I'm a fan of ranked choice voting and getting money out of politics, but any third party would be subject to all the corrupting dynamics affecting the other two.
With few exceptions, the government in the US acts on behalf of the capitalist class, not in opposition to it. There is no "pure" capitalism that would exist if the government just left free markets alone. Capitalists won't leave the free market alone. Capitalists will take ownership and control over the chokepoints of the economy, government or no[1], granting them their own sovereign territory they can levy taxes on. This is a state - a monopoly on the legitimate use of force - whose territory is not of a city or a nation but of a market niche.
This system is sustainable in some ways and not in others. Yes, the market is distorted, which means it sucks for us, but the people who own the market-state don't actually feel that punishment. Which means they won't stop. Something has to actually force them to stop.
[0] Analogous to how the PRC has cornered the modern neoliberal west today.
[1] To be clear, nation-states are also culpable in this process, both through sins of omission (failing to enforce antitrust law) and sins of commission (creating legal monopolies that form new economic chokepoints to conquer)
But when the US did this it was very different because with Bretton Woods we had already established the USD as the global currency to be used in international trade and settlement everywhere. So countries were unable to move away from the dollar as fast as they could other currencies. And in the interim we started setting up the Petrodollar to prevent them from doing this - by making it impossible to buy the most in-demand commodity in anything other than USD - making fighting against the dollar futile.
But one of Biden's many 'accomplishments' was pushing Saudi Arabia far away enough that they chose to not renew the 50 year Petrodollar agreement, which ended on June 9th 2024. This means now that the USD is completely and absolutely free floating with no backing, indirect or direct. And you can see this in which currency countries are holding as a reserve currency. [1] Just before Bretton Woods it was about 85% USD. It then plummeted (after the Bretton Woods default) and then bounced back to reach a peak of 72% in 2001. It's now down to 57% (Wiki table has not been updated with latest numbers) and continuing to steadily decrease.
As soon as a viable alternative currency emerges, the USD will collapse - and this entire economic system alongside it. Trump's ideas aren't so much radical as he is simply saying the quiet parts (probably as a result of intelligence briefings) out loud. This entire thing is why he's threatened 100% tariffs if BRICS countries try to replace the dollar. Of course tariffs from what would be a collapsed economy have far less weight behind them than e.g. the lack of access to oil. So the interesting times we live in are certain to continue for the foreseeable future.
All fiat currencies are backed by the strength of their economies. The US denominates its considerable goods and services in USD. That's not nothing.
Literally all advanced economies use fiat currency, but only one benefits from petrodollars. Shouldn't whatever bad thing you think will happen to the US now already have happened to them?
Most countries in the world have been abusing their currencies as a 'hack' for growth. The need for infinite and accelerating growth to fuel the infinite and accelerating debt caused actually seemed briefly sustainable thanks to the computing and internet revolutions. Granted you still have the zillion other negative effects (as per the wtfhappenedin1971) site, but you can at least keep moving forward because the peasants (who are the most negatively affected) will just take it anyhow, so long as they have bread and circuses.
But as soon as you stop the accelerating growth, you get drowned by your own decades of YOLO debt, faith in the currency collapses, and your economy right alongside.
That's part of their value, but not their backing. This is one of the reasons something like a gold standard is nonsensical: the amount of gold a country has is wholly unrelated to its economic strength (I think we agree on this).
> Most countries in the world have been abusing their currencies as a 'hack' for growth.
I don't think there's any evidence for this. AIUI growth is entirely explained by technology (e.g. fracking) and natural resource discovery. From time to time something very bad happens and we dump money into the economy, and depending on what the bad thing was that can be a moral hazard or potentially inflationary, but we've only ever seen that on a very small scale (the COVID stimuli were responsible for a very small proportion of the recent inflation spike).
> Granted you still have the zillion other negative effects (as per the wtfhappenedin1971) site, but you can at least keep moving forward because the peasants (who are the most negatively affected) will just take it anyhow, so long as they have bread and circuses.
Income and wealth inequality aren't the result of printing money, and my evidence here is the robber baron era. This is something else goldbugs never want to reckon with: sure things were pretty good in the post-war expansion, but what about before that? Oh right, the Great Depression... hmm. Oh right the robber baron era... hmm. Oh right, the panics of 1819, 1837, 1857, 1901, 1907, and 1910, the Long Depression in 1873, the financial crisis of 1914, the depression of 1920, the recessions in 1949, 1953, 1958, 1960, and 1969. And that's just the US.
Overall the criticism of floating currencies is fully detached from reality. Countries that use them are super successful, there are no successful countries that don't, the dangers that goldbugs warn about have never occurred and there's no evidence they will. On the other hand, the ability to print money is wildly effective when combating crises. So from a policy perspective, you're asking us to 100% endure depression after depression to avoid downsides that have 0% occurred. Even if you're right and you elect people who think you're right, the first depression will kick you and yours out of power forever.
This is the core problem I have with backseat policy entrepreneurs: they rarely have any (usually zero) appreciation of the issue's complexity. As soon as you try and engage in a detailed discussion, you get mired in moralisms and a total lack of empiricism. This debate inevitably goes down to "debt" and "inflation is the most immoral of taxes" (what a lack of imagination btw; I can think of so many virtuous things to tax) and both are full on polemics you can't at all discuss. Debt bad! Harming wage workers bad! Never mind that between 1971 and now things got infinitely better.
For instance this [1] is the US monetary supply. If we only dump money on the economy when "bad things are happening" then it must be assumed that really bad things are always happening, and at a rapidly accelerating rate.
And similarly Wiki has a passable section on the history of wealth inequality in the US [2] : "In the late 18th century, “incomes were more equally distributed in colonial America than in any other place that can be measured,” according to Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson. The richest 1 percent of households held only 8.5% of total income in the late 18th century...
In 1860, the top 1 percent collected almost one-third of property incomes, as compared to 13.7% in 1774. There was a great deal of competition for land in the cities and non-frontier areas during this time period, with those who had already acquired land becoming richer than everyone else. The newly burgeoning financial sector also greatly rewarded the already-wealthy, as they were the only ones financially sound enough to invest.[19]"
And once again many of the problems with our current system are already highly visible, completely quantified, and have clear causal backings.
[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite...
> And similarly Wiki has a passable section on the history of wealth inequality in the US [2] : "In the late 18th century
I'm not going back to the economy of literally 1774 to find proof that the gold standard works. "Are banks a good idea" is something you'll have to take up with Hamilton, not me.
> And once again many of the problems with our current system are already highly visible, completely quantified, and have clear causal backings.
Again feel free to post any evidence here, or respond to any of my questions (also with evidence).
Ah, now you are seeing! The US prints completely ridiculous amounts of money. The superpower we have/had is to then dump a significant chunk of the resultant inflation onto other countries. So we get to turn a far larger chunk of that printed money into "growth", keep the currency stronger, suffer less inflation, etc than would be true for other countries engaging in identical behavior.
BTW to make sure we're on the same page here. There are two distinct topics at play. One is quality of life for the average person. I think that has stagnated to declined for the plethora of reasons illustrated on the 1971 page. The second is the economic state of the country (as opposed to the people). And that has obviously substantially improved since 1971, particularly with our superpower, but I am arguing that as our ability to export inflation continues to decline we're towards a major inflection point that I suspect will be the end of this economic system.
[0]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
An example of a successful non-fiat economy would obviously be the US. Until 1971 we had various forms of backing to our currency. After 1971 we invented this abomination of a system which probably only lasted as long as it did thanks to the growth of digital technologies making infinite growth, to meet infinite debt, briefly sustainable, all be it only with rather dramatic consequences, particularly for the lower half of society.
By your own metric of Japan's failure (stock market value), the US economy has excelled tremendously since 1971 (yes, even adjusting for inflation), so now I'm confused about what argument you're making. I also assume all the other points I made stand.
As a side note, population age ratios are directly determined by fertility rates. And we went from a system where people were comfortably raising family on a single income, to one where full time workers living alone are, in many cases, not exactly thriving, let alone trying to raise a whole family on that income. Most developed economies are seeing fertility rates plummet and it's entirely possible that monetary policy is indeed playing some potentially significant role in that!
Aside from there being so, so many other reasons for declining birth rates (if less money means less likely to have kids, why do people with higher incomes or wealth have lower birth rates than those without?), Japan doesn't print money: its inflation is famously low. How can a country with famously low inflation experience declining birth rates due to high inflation from printing money?
It seems you are more a fan of writing than reading, but this link would be informative. [1]
[1] - https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/052516/japans-...
In other words, that article is junk, mostly telling goldbugs what they want to hear. Let's look at some real metrics. Japan's the 4th largest economy in the world. They have reasonably good income inequality. They do have a child poverty problem but this is almost certainly the result of entrenched gender roles--it's very hard for single mothers to be sole providers there. Their neonatal mortality is extremely low, their HDI is super high, their literacy and education rates are very high, their life expectancy is very high, etc etc etc. Unless you think switching to a gold standard would magically fix deeply rooted sexism, I don't know what you're arguing for here. Mostly, it just seems like you pot-shot various economies, which is way easier than running one (another argument I made you failed to respond to).
And this was the point - the reason you are able to use them as an example of a country that endlessly prints money without being ravaged by the countless problems places like the US have suffered since 1971 is because their economy is basically frozen in time. This is undesirable.
The ideal one wants is an economy that can increase at a healthy rate without being ravaged by everything we've seen since 1971. And what's the solution? Practically everything before 1971!
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
> And they'll keep going down.
Yes, because of population issues. Not because they'll be overtaken by powerful non-fiat economies (both the ruble and rupee float as does every currency AFAIK).
> And this was the point - the reason you are able to use them as an example of a country that endlessly prints money without being ravaged by the countless problems places like the US have suffered since 1971 is because their economy is basically frozen in time. This is undesirable.
Without granting that it's "frozen", what's undesirable about it? It sounds nice TBH.
> The ideal one wants is an economy that can increase at a healthy rate
The growth we've seen since the Industrial Revolution is unsustainable. Growth requires energy, and at some point the energy requirement either can't be met, or the heat exhaust from the conversion boils the oceans. Grim, I know.
> without being ravaged by everything we've seen since 1971
Life is so much better than it was in '71 I don't even know where to start. Are there problems now? Of course. Are literally any of them caused by Bretton Woods? Absolutely not.
> And what's the solution? Practically everything before 1971!
Feel free to go down the list of pre-Bretton Woods economic crises I posted and explain why they happened despite everything being better then.
This romanticization of early stage capitalism is awful. What is late stage capitalism? Because civil rights and women rights have been pretty recent in the grand scheme of things, so in that sense Capitalism was upheld and had most of its lifetime in a scheme that crushed the majority of its people I find the theory of:
> Capitalism is pretty great in the beginning
really hard to swallow.
Now, most of us are working to maintain artificial scarcities, rather than mitigate authentic ones, and there are a lot more of us. So the a randomly chosen effect of our system is more likely to be negative because it's being chosen in a context that's very far from that long lost age when capitalism seemed necessary.
I think that's what makes it late-stage, when it's found to have more side-effect than desired effect. Like a yeast which started turning sugar into alcohol at a prodigious rate but then later the alcohol concentration is toxic to it and more effort is spent trying to filter it out than anything to do with its original purpose.
Extremes of left and right-wing politics both require excessive force to implement.
We need a voting system that will overcome the nash equilibrum of mutually assured destruction by assigning weights to the outcomes of collective responsibility for our interactions, not just "be selfish or not" on an individual level or "stay in the frying pan or put some people in the fire" politically.
> assigning weights to the outcomes of collective responsibility for our interactions
Voting is an input, not an outcome. Anyhow re: ranked choice voting, it's better than FPTP like we use in the US, though if I had to pick one it would be https://www.starvoting.org
If you look into this a little bit more, I think you’ll find that the institution of slavery doesn’t strictly require any particular system of economics, government, or religion.
Anyway, you are misunderstanding what I meant by early / late capitalism.. it’s not just about specific calendar epochs like 1950-present. What I’m referring to is that any new market will have early/middle/late stages that are pretty distinct from each other. A new market might be created by new policy (say a change in import/export restrictions) or by new technology (like the internet or AI) or by new frontiers (like the East Indies before, and outer space soon). Late stage here just means the real ideation and competition is basically finished and now it’s time for consolidation, M+A, integrating vertically, optimizing exploitation/extraction, enshittification, etc.
Duverger's law is to blame, the idea that only two parties were viable because any third option would just split the vote and make the former majority lose. It became just as effective, if not more effective, to undermine the opposition and destroy competition itself.
It's a coordination problem. We've begun to solve it in training of AI models, having both a capability coach (model of purely what are valid patterns) and a moral coach (model of how those valid patterns affect the feelings of human observers). It creates compromise between capability and human goals, but creates at least a basic level of alignment, with more layers of filtering and iterative generation as options to catch mistakes at time of inference instead of training.
In politics, the "left" is the raw capability, but it focuses so much on being accurate that it can lose track of the goals that really matter, and the strategy necessary to reach those goals. The "right" is dedicated to a particular goal, sometimes so much so that it denies "obvious" reality in order to focus on blind faith to its cause.
The two "sides" NEED each other. That wisdom has been lost. Moloch, the idea of a demon representing the outcome of selfish incentives benefiting the individual but hurting everyone as a result, reigns supreme.
The only way out that I can see is a voting system with partial weights and moderately more expressiveness. Give too much expressiveness and you create a purity test ruled by a single party and scoring points on how "American" or $MyState they are. Give too little and you get what we have now, the frying pan and the fire trying to herd people into their camp until everyone lands in the fire anyway.
If instead of voting for {+1, 0, 0, ...} without repeats, we used a system with {+1, +0.5, -0.5} without repeats (no double scoring of candidates, no duplicating scores) each district should end up with a dynamic stability of maybe 3-5 parties. The negativity would be in the hands of the voters. The candidates would be incentivized to use constructive campaigns, because negativity would be diluted, and if they went negative they'd attract even more negativity to themselves.
Even more fundamentally if you apply those weights to the outcomes of a Nash Equilibrium, such as nuclear war, armed standoff, or even destructive war between economic powers, the win-lose outcomes are on parity or lower than the win-win outcome if such a win-win possibility exists.
I really think this problem represents the Great Filter. If we can't learn from it, we're doomed, whether to ourselves or to our AI systems learning and inheriting the selfish form of the logic from us. Government needs to be the result of win-win interactions or it will be unstable.
The founding fathers, the framers of the US Constitution, recognized the need to balance greed against greed, self-interest tempered by respect of that in others. The government was split into 3 branches, and Washington warned us of the dangers of partisanship. We didn't have the math to solve it, then, but now we do: Partial votes at the state level creating healthy, constructive, honest competition. The principle that actually Made America Great, enabled by opportunity itself.
This sounds melodramatic yet it's quite trivial to list countless things that have become much worse, while it's somewhat more difficult to list things that have become much better.
It's the issue with economic/technological development as the main milestone. Would you rather live as an aristocrat in Ancient Greece, or in poverty in the US today? Basically nobody would pick the latter choice but by the things we would typically list as better, a person in poverty today would have while our Ancient Greek could only dream of such. But it seems there's more to life than smartphones, medicine, and air conditioning.
For technology optimism, look at younger generations. You are not going to find it in older generations. It's not a technical problem; it's a problem with aging. Young people are still expressing themselves online. Mostly not using any of the tools used by us older people. And good for them.
I grew up in the 1970s and 80s. I don't have a lot of patience for people of my own age these days. Not a lot of creativity there. Lovely people but just not very inspiring. Most of their great achievements are in the past. I try to keep some young people around me to keep me a bit more engaged. Much more fun. Young people haven't changed at all. I'm at risk of sliding into old age and being all grumpy about it. But I refuse to. Doesn't sound like a lot of fun.
It's not technology that's stopping people from expressing themselves but the fact that they no longer have the mental agility to make the most of what at the time were very primitive tools. If it was there (again) would you use it? Hint: it's still there and you are not using it like you used to! All the old tools still work. And there are some newer ones that work even better. The tools are there. But you aren't.
People of our age group expected internet technologies to be democratising and empowering. Instead they have become centralised and controlled.
PG is is right that Twitter's advantage was that it did not feel like it was owned by a private company. The problem is, that that feeling was entirely incorrect. Unlike open protocols things controlled by private companies are inevitably enshittified.
*People of your age group who knew and had access to Internet
30 years ago, most people were not using internet. They did not expect anything from something they did not know anything about.
Nowadays internet is a daily tool for billions from all age, from most countries and from many economic levels. It has been democratized. It has empowered a lot of people. And I'm sure many would like it to help do more of it. I'd bet more than during your time.
Which we expected
> It has been democratized.
Anything but. More people using it not democratising it. More people sharing control is democratising.
> It has empowered a lot of people
Not as much as it should have, not anywhere like as much.
The platforms work really hard to make it seem like you're using them, but in truth they're using you.
This is obviously true, despite young people and old people who want to argue against all reason that nothing of significance has changed. If you don’t want to be perceived as old/cranky there’s huge pressure to lower your own expectations, stop pointing out problems, to actively make excuses for problems and to shout down anyone else.
I’m not even sure what to point out as evidence here since it’s so ubiquitous, but for a simple example.. surfing the internet is a hilarious anachronistic metaphor since it implies a free and frictionless experience that takes you anywhere. We browse fewer sites owned by fewer companies, using way more effort and tactics to dodge all kinds of thirsty and user hostile bullshit, even before we discuss things like AI slop and misinformation. It’s not surfing as much as lurching horribly, like riding on a bike uphill with square wheels.
We also pay for more things that in the end we own less of. Sure you can still hack your phone to act like the unrestricted computing device that it actually is, you can spend a bunch of effort ripping the drm off the ebooks, audiobooks, and music that you “own”. But it’s a constant time and energy suck that you eventually get tired of revisiting. Despite or perhaps because of AI, even autocomplete on my phone is worse than it was 5 years ago (apparently it prefers “Horta” as the complete for “hier” instead of “hierarchy”, presumably because brand names have been weighted more than English? Good thing we’ve advanced beyond simple dictionaries, hurray for progress?)
Realistic techno optimism is kind of predicated on things gradually improving instead of on steady decline. Anyway, the decline wouldn’t be so irritating if we could at least agree to curb this whole “same as it ever was!” commentary.. it’s naive and not enlightened. We can’t begin to fix problems that we won’t acknowledge.
I think that like many other things, this reflects political and cultural expectations at large. The west has become centralising and centrally controlled. Unlike the Soviet Union that control is shared between the government and big business, but it is still far more centralised and regulated than the west was a few decades ago.
This also relates to things like privacy, policing and security, education (the Act the British government wants to pass at the moment is a good example of the state taking more control, both from individuals and centralising its own institutions), economic policy, building infrastruture...... pretty much everything.
Good lord it's so annoying. We're in charge now! We're literally writing gushing posts about Bluesky when it's solved exactly zero of the problems Twitter had (I guess it won't automatically switch you back to algorithmic feed, but honestly probably just give it time to enshittify).
Maybe I'm making too much out of what is essentially a collective action problem, but it's kind of heartbreaking to watch my generation sleepwalking into this weird social media abyss. Just don't keep walking! Quit making the abyss deeper!
For example, say I’m in traffic on the highway. Searching 401 might in this example surface tweets from other drivers on the highway talking about traffic and/or posts about an accident they came across.
Nothing about this sort of interaction is baked into the protocol as far as I can tell yet FB insta snap etc don’t work this way.
Neither does Twitter.
Its search is frequently broken to push whatever the new version of their algorithm decides to push. If Musk so wishes your entire feed will be just his rants (something I experienced a few weeks ago).
Pre-Musk and pre-algorithm Twitter was a good source of news, as it was near-realtime, and relevant to you. Now? No.
Something that really pissed me off is how much of a "support channel" it became for things like my internet provider. If the internet went down their twitter was often the only place you could get info.
When joining a group its easiest to simply adopt the choice the group has already made.
Companies chose Twitter because lots of people (their customers) already used it. If their customers move, and indicate a preference, they'll happily move too.
Personally I don't use Twitter. Lots of businesses post on Twitter, and they're welcome to do so.
I do use WhatsApp. Which has traditionally been business unfriendly. The odd business will connect with me that way, but that's rare.
Email, web, phone, IRL - these all seem to be working well here, but your mileage may vary. Hopefully you have some choices.
Maybe thats a good thing. It forces content to be posted to X directly instead of click baiting you into ad infested, paywalled, dark pattern websites.
The only losers here are legacy media.
How can your opinion outweigh that of the various decision makers who originally agreed to implement it…?
https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/01/why-the-web...
The net is fundamentally about linking things together.
Through subjectivity, of course.
It seemed well reasoned to me... ?
And Twitter is the ultimate “dark pattern”
Also, Twitter isn't a great format for longer posts. And trying to prevent people from leaving your site is itself a user-hostile dark pattern.
Btw, what ads? Is that some nonsense that silly people without ublock origin have to deal with?
If you think it isn't paywalled you're thinking about it too superficially, you are paying by volunteering to be the product in the form of having an active account, and without an active account the site/app is effectively completely useless for about a year now.
An Instagram post takes up my whole screen and a picture is expected. Each post is given so much real estate and it makes you want to dress it up.
In the end, those different amounts of “friction” lends to posting different kinds of content.
It’s a vibe of a high end dinner establishment vs. a quick pickup place. They have their own lanes.
1) the low friction leading to more mundane things being posted 2) the norm being text content not from people you necessarily follow / people who aren’t “celebrities” so mundane relatable things tend to bubble up.
I do wonder if one day video understanding LLMs will be able to understand what a photo/video is about and show you content that’s relevant to you
Never have ever seen such insane things (people shot point blank in the head & the gruesomeness of it) I didnt need to see (scrolling thru) and all thanks to X.
It's baked into the UI. Public by default.
Facebook is personal by default. You post stuff on 'your feed', you view 'your friends' updates.
Late in the game Facebook realised this was a problem and has tried to cram other stuff into people's feeds - viral content. And people hate it. People want their Facebook feed to be stuff from people they know and they see the other injected content (meme groups, assorted interest groups, comics, etc) as little more than extra adverts.
Contrastingly Twitter was always the public firehose and so while many people do not care for it, those that do, are opting into it, not trying to opt out.
I don't care a bit about bluesky, and while I check on my Mastodon feed a few times a week I don't interact there much either. This "look at me, whole world!" phenomenon is of very little interest to me. I despise what Meta has become, but I don't see an alternative yet to FB.
The problem is the monetisation of it.
The problem I have on Twitter now is that folks hijack that and post tweets about totally unrelated stuff (usually crypto). Take you example that there is a huge wreck on the 401 and you want to find out what's going on. Go on Twitter and the top post will be something like:
"Get your Airdrop to $NEWCRYPTO Today. iPhone 12, 401 Crash, Cute Cats"
or maybe we need more generic clients. Something that can consume mastodon et. al. posts! Would be neat to have Lemmy + Mastodon + personal blog posts etc mixing together into a single feed, RSS style.
I have also been thinking in the lines of a generic "all-in-one" client. The only reason this is not common yet, is old habits from decades of captivity in silos. I believe we will see such clients developed in the next few years.
> The reason is that it's a new messaging protocol, where you don't specify the recipients
This describes all websites everywhere. It also describes NNTP.
You can't "follow" websites and get a uniform chronological feed of updates. That's partly why RSS exists, though it also doesn't give you a uniform feed of updates. That has to be constructed client side by downloading all updates for all subscribed feeds.
> It also describes NNTP
Which also doesn't provide a uniform feed of updates.
Either the Twitter frontend or app has to do this, because Twitter is a web API. So either Twitter isn't a new protocol or every blog, forum, etc is a new protocol, with isn't really an interesting statement.
>> It also describes NNTP
> Which also doesn't provide a uniform feed of updates.
I'm not clear on what you mean by "uniform feed", but let me introduce you to NEWNEWS: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3977#page-64
If it helps to find middle ground, I do think the AT protocol is a new protocol. I don't necessarily think it's a good idea or an improvement on NNTP, but it at least isn't just a microblogging website.
Obviously I was very wrong, but I wish i wasn't.
It's a platform - a marketplace for buying opinion.
It's only astounding because your assumptions are false. pg is nothing like a pointy-haired boss. What he is is a highly curious and lazy (in the good sense of the word) hacker who is bored by busywork. How you managed to arrive at the inverse image of that is such a feat of pathfinding that I'd be interested in the steps by which you got there.
But because it's pg it's different? No, it's still a bad post. There are a plethora of other reasons Twitter was a big deal. It being a "protocol" wasn't one of them.
The subtext of these "it's not even a protocol" arguments are that Paul Graham doesn't know what a protocol is, which is not a plausible argument. Why make it?
It's true that things look different on the outside, though one might add that people who routinely jump to cynical conclusions about others don't make very good Hacker News commenters.
But what made you think I know anything about neuroscience?
This is a rather presumptive conclusion. Unless, of course, you have specific knowledge corroborated by others such that this assertion is more than a trite ad hominem.
Full disclosure: I am not associated with anyone who owns, administers, or in any way runs this site.
Nor am I "white knighting for a meal ticket."
PG gets a lot of flack on HN, some comments better-considered than others. Most of us are able to tell the difference and file the mindless attacks appropriately. We don't need you to rush to his defense, and in fact you doing so is likely counterproductive.
You've often said that you take a policy of moderating less, not more, when YC is involved. This interaction and moderation action breaks that pattern, which is harmful.
As for replying: sorry, but as I said at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42763996, when people I'm fond of are maligned, I'm going to respond. That has nothing to do with YC, that has to do with being human. (Another recent example was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42685972.)
One is ideally an unbiased, mechanical action subject to a rigid set of publicized conditions to which the comment(s) concerned are applied. So-and-so comment(s) are moderated so-and-so because they violate so-and-so in the guidelines, for example.
The other is (by your own admission) a biased, emotional, personal action subject and liable only to yourself.
The two are mutually incompatible when performed together.
Actually, though, collapsing the GP subthread was just that sort of application of the site guidelines. It's obvious (IMO) that the subthread is flamebaity and well offtopic. I reversed that decision as a courtesy to lolinder and a nod to the "moderate less when YC is involved" principle—even though it was the correct call from the unbiased/mechanical/rigid side of the ledger.
Administering and moderating Hacker News is your job, that is correct. You also admitted that the rebuttal and moderation action this all stems from was driven by personal emotions (your liking Paul Graham). Your personal emotions have nothing to do with your professional job, the two are irrelevant to each other.
It's this mixing of professional and personal that is the problem. Not performing your job consistently will draw criticism, but mixing the two will cause even more fundamental criticism as was the case here.
Personally, I think the correct way of handling this would have been one of two ways: A) Engage in moderating the thread and refrain from acting personally. Or B) Engage in the thread personally and recuse yourself from the thread professionally, asking another moderator to do the work.
It's true that we shouldn't act on each other purely out of our own emotion but that's true personally too, not just professionally.
If you try to exclude emotion from human activity, including internet moderation, it ends up running the show anyways, just more crudely and unconsciously. Better to consciously give it a place—hopefully an appropriate place.
Questions like this have come up over the years and my sense (you may disagree of course) is that the community is happier with moderators who show feeling sometimes and can be related to personally. I could be wrong about that, but if so, it should have caused large problems long before now.
So, carry on I guess? :)
I think it was also a text service in the very beginning.
I also added SSL to a site "too late" by hivemind standards. It's static HTML and contains nothing sensitive. I guess maybe a malicious ISP could theoretically inject ads or something.
I don't think he believed it was a protocol in a literal sense, but that people were using it like one. It had an open API at the time and both production and consumption of tweets was often automated. It didn't really work out that way longer-term, but it wasn't crazy to guess that it might.
> [In computing:] a set of rules governing the exchange or transmission of data between devices.
In the article, pg says this:
> The reason is that it's a new messaging protocol, where you don't specify the recipients.
It seems obvious to me what pg is getting at, even though the other protocols he mentioned are all formal while Twitter's is not.
Never thought of it like that before
Did twitter have some sort of open API back then or what was he talking about?
>the official procedure or system of rules governing affairs of state or diplomatic occasions.
"protocol forbids the prince from making any public statement in his defense"
>the accepted or established code of procedure or behavior in any group, organization, or situation.
"what is the protocol at a conference if one's neighbor dozes off during the speeches?"
If so, how do we dismantle this? Not from a technical perspective -- atproto for example seems powerful enough -- but from a social/economic/mindshare perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdM-XTRyC9c
~summarized in text form https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
I like to THINK that atproto's ability to easily move one's data between providers makes it less susceptible to the "Gmail problem," but I think I'm being naively optimistic
The answer from Matrix is here: https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom...
Related thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35141223
theres no dismantling it. every time we offer decentralized vs centralized solutions, the centralized wins because of convenience, funding, faster progress, take your pick (lmao look at bluesky/atproto, bitcoin/coinbase). It's not even primarily because of VC or Silicon Valley ethos. this is just raw human nature at work. you want this to change, propose whatever alternative you have to the normie in middle america and watch their blank stares.
and by google not showing forums or blogs (especially new ones) as top results any more (mostly because of pre-llm spam websites) they just didnt get any more users.
facebook split up the "advertising" part and the connecting people / groups part, e.g. facebook's search wouldn't show ads.
I personally that this lack of friction really pushed social media sites forward, while the rest of the internet got kneecapped by google more and more like a boiling frog.
It isnt like the people using the net before facebook etc just stopped what and how they were doing things and moved to facebook.
The large tech firm offering were easier, it allowed people access to the internet in an easy to use way who would not otherwise have done so.
The internet in 2000 was a much much smaller place with far different demographics.
We also overestimate how important the web in general is to many 'normies'. It was only a little over 10 yrs ago that I had to convince my wife (20-something at the time) that she had a reason to get a smartphone. We're so far apart on the adoption curve that it's very difficult to understand each other. As generations shift, I expect attitudes about lock-in, privacy, dependency etc will as well.
Multi-protocol clients tend to end up a mess compared to the integrated experience of a platform which can provide a single source of truth for identity, authentication, and so on.
Netscape Communicator ticked many of the boxes of Facebook years earlier, but by kludging together NNTP, HTTP, SMTP, POP3, FTP etc., and that's before you consider the difficulty of moderating an open syndication like Usenet or IRC, or the pain in the ass that email spam had become by the early 00s.
Protocol/standards people like to think they care about UX, but for platform companies, user growth and retention literally pays their bills. It's just a different set of incentives.
And to be clear, I prefer the more open internet, but UX wise, it never stood a chance against normie-optimised, integrated platforms.
I remember when MySpace came along, I started to see movie studios started creating dedicated MySpace pages for their films instead of dedicated sites.
It makes sense; MySpace was free and had built-in marketing via their "friends" system. You're not messing with hosting, or domain names, or even programmers, and unlike other free hosting systems, it wasn't considered lame to have `Check Us Out On MySpace` (whereas it would have been considered lame to have `geocities.com/myMovie`).
Apply this to most other industries, and you have what we have now.
when it comes to things like TOR they make sense and are sticky, or minecraft servers (if that counts). decentralization can be desirable, even something bitcoin like (distributing a ledger) can probably have something to offer if used to solve a problem.
I get what you’re saying, though. I think decentralization will be in vogue again, when it solves real problems.
In theory you could create a decentralized uber, possibly even something cash based, if anonymity ever becomes a concern again. Some services don’t necessarily need to be built by companies, they can be unnecessary middle men. It makes sense for drivers to run nodes themselves, be their own bosses, etc.
Kind of a neat idea now I want to build it.
Something like that may not get users immediately but something will inevitably happen that will get people interested in that kind of idea.
Whether the corporations saw that as an opportunity at an early stage or they were at the right place, at the right time, I can't say. I'm more leaning towards the latter since I've worked at corporations and success in those environments is most commonly a moderately-educated gamble.
You're absolutely right about people needing backups -- but ofc selfhosting is too huge a hurdle to expect most folks to embark on.
I wonder what can be done to make the "better" options easier. Can this even be done by the private sector alone given the incentives of capitalism? I'm unsure.
Given how many things we've seen happen in the social media space back-to-back (Elon taking over Twitter, Meta pandering to the new US governing party, TikTok's ban), I can't imagine these events will slow down. That at least fills me with hope that more people will wonder "does it have to be this way?" ...obviously that won't be enough for true mass adoption, but it's a start
* The software: different open source solutions have very different requirements at a high level: language, platform or even system requirements. Say you want to take messaging off centralized platforms: you need to host something like Matrix, which is very well made and polished but takes a lot of resources to run. Alternatively, you could use Jabber, which scales like no other but is an absolute hell to setup and maintain. Same can be said about music, videos, movies and all other things
* Operations: probably simple if you ask someone on HN, but you still need to understand networking, operating systems and file systems. I started using Linux when I was 11 in the distant 2000, and even now I'm not very enthusiastic if I have to make some changes to my zfs. You also need to consider backups and security and resources. Say you wanna run openstreetmap(which we recently started doing at work). Awesome but that requires an ungodly amount of fiddling in addition to an astonishing amount of time needed to unpack, even on enterprise hardware.
If you are in the tech world, https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted is a great place to start. But if you want to make it simpler... Idk... A lot of people would need to put in a lot of effort, as in build a linux distro around this idea, along with "recommended hardware", one click install(a very dumbed down equivalent of portainer), and some backup and alerting mechanisms built into the system. It's a tough question and frankly I don't have the answer.
One of the challenges with open-protocols-based systems is protocol stasis. That is, once a protocol is developed and in wide use, agreeing collectively on change is hard. I've seen this directly (largely on the user-side) with Diaspora* (the platform, whilst it has some good basics, is tragically stuck with design decisions from a decade and a half ago), and Mastodon (itself an attempt to break out of stasis within IRC, StatusNet, GNU Social, and WebFinger). The two sides of that debate tend to register as purist/absolutists who cotton no variance from spec, and expand-and-embrace radicals who are seeking to adapt the protocol for private gain. (The truth of course is that both positions are considerably more nuanced, of course, and good or bad motivations may well exist on either side.)
We're seeing part of this play out with HTML/HTTP (now largely captured by Google) and SMTP (largely moribund) where on the one hand a highly complex spec largely serving the interests of publishers and advertisers over readers exists (HTML/HTTP) (see especially Drew Devault's account of how insanely complex it is to write an HTML renderer from scratch), and in the case of SMTP, many failures (privacy, security, spam, workflow integration) of email to adapt to new needs and concerns.
The result is that we rely less on open standards (making lock-in more prevalent, and new entry more challenging), existing standards are either static (SMTP) or so bloated as to lock out new entrants (HTML/HTTP), and larger aspects of online exchange get locked into proprietary stacks, protocols, platforms, and actors, with what development does occur largely addressing corporate rather than community / societal needs.
For someone who was pitched on the promise and liberation of information technologies from the 1970s onward, and was present as the modern Web and online world has emerged, it's tremendously disappointing, though there've been some lessons learned, if by me rather than the world at large. It's been interesting to watch major social rights advocates, of both the digital and broader stripes, come to terms with this (EFF, ACLU, and others), and shift their tunes considerably.
For the younger set who didn't experience this, or the older set who've forgotten or weren't paying attention, it's increasingly revealing to visit works being published over the course of this development, beginning with some of the earliest RAND monographs in the 1960s, whether cautionary or enthusiastic. I find the cautionary takes have worn better.
A partial bibliography here: <https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/105074933053020193>
I'd add to that Lessig's Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace and Andrew Shapiro's Control Revolution, both published in 1999.
<https://archive.org/details/codeotherlawsofc0000less>
<https://archive.org/details/controlrevolutio00andr>
Alvin Toffler's Future Shock addresses this specific issue only slightly, but is another historically interesting and significant take on what was, now over fifty years ago, the future of technological, informational, and cultural development:
<https://archive.org/details/isbn_0553132644>
As I've noted here recently, that book's prognostications can be divided into TK-count, ahem, three categories: technical, psychological, and social. The first is largely over-optimistic, with a general (though not total) exception in the case of information technology. The latter is strongly cautionary and relatively accurate. The third now reads as hopelessly outdated, largely as it has become the current socio-cultural environment.
See: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42688251>
Books on the impact of media and society are also worth considering. Elizabeth Eisenstein's The Printing Press as an Agent of Change <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Eisenstein#The_Print...>, as well as earlier works by McLuhan, Harold Innis, and Walter J. Ong. I'm increasingly convinced that changes to information technology and systems, from the advent of speech, writing, and maths to the present, have absolutely profound impacts on the societies in which they emerge (and those proximate to them). They act as power-multipliers on other technological advances, notably in agriculture, metallurgy, fuels, mechanics, electromagnetism, etc., but even on their own are highly underappreciated.
41, in retrospect I'd say this change happened around 2000-2010, why being not-invented-here-syndrome as Web 2.0 became a thing with some corporations publishing free-to-integrate XML-based APIs (technically also JSON, but I never saw them until much later); every API was different, so the only part which could be seen as a "protocol" were the meta-level of "how to define any API" e.g. XML, JSON.
I think the answer is "usability". Look at all the community-made, non-commercial projects. They tend to suck because they weren't built for you. They were built for people with similar high investment into the thing they do, for experts or power-users. For them it works.
So IMO the key question is how to find motivation or time or money to solve someone else's problem, without being forced to maximize the money-making part. Because by now we can see exactly what happens when money is the primary goal. Everyone starts with good intentions (solving a problem), but the incentives are so powerful. If you don't follow them you'll start to struggle, long-term, or get out-competed by someone who maximizes the money-making part of the job.
I think the answer to your "dismantling" question would be similar to antitrust actions against railroads, steel industry, etc. a century ago. It takes political will and sensible regulation. Economics favor the capital, not democracy or other social values. As in with other mass consumer markets, I think the consumers also enable this in a tragedy of the commons scenario. They each can make self-serving compromises for convenience and enjoyment and ignore the externalities.
By the way, before the internet protocols dominated, there were bulletin board systems (BBSs) and unix-to-unix copy protocol (UUCP) networks. These had some grassroots kind of community federation but also got more commercial consolidation over time. Handwaving a bit, this included systems like Compuserve and AOL. In some ways, USENET was the biggest social media that made the transition from UUCP to internet. It too eventually suffered from the same erosion of its userbase and attacks by commercial consolidation and neglect, before the web.
Email: One of the oldest parts of the Internet. Very open standard. Federated. Largely ad-free. Little lock-in (Though @gmail.com addresses are a potential serious risk). Lots of attempts (by Slack, etc.) to "kill" email because no corporation controls it.
RSS/podcasts: RSS (or Atom or whatever) should be way more popular, but it still lives on through podcasts where anyone can publish anywhere and subscribe to anything. hough Spotify and Apple are trying hard to lock things down, they haven't succeeded yet.
The web: Exists and is still largely open. Efforts to turn everything into a closed app haven't succeeded yet and attempts to lock down the web (e.g. web attestation) have failed so far.
Mastodon and RCS are lightyears from consolidating X/whatsapp/messenger/telegram/signal/discord/slack/teams/etc.
Email+notifications is a joke, lacking groups features, true undo, large attachments and video codecs, etc.
Email is immensely concentrated amongst a literal handful of large players, and intercommunications between those are fraught. (My Protonmail messages to Mozilla Pocket's QA team are rejected by their Gmail service, and have been for years.) Spam, confidentiality, privacy, and trust of asserted identity are all overwhelming problems. I make all but no personal use of email and haven't for years, despite first using the medium in the 1980s.
RSS has been strongly deprecated by major players. Its one bright point are podcasts (based on RSS), though that is also increasingly centralised and commercialised. The number of pods which are ad-free has been ever-shrinking, and those ads are exceedingly poor. Major publishers managed to make their RSS feeds all but useless (teasers of stories, abysmal formatting, ads/nags). Small blogs are still a source, but they're hardly the vanguard they once were.
The Web's standards process has been utterly captured by Google on all three of the publisher, ad/tracking, and browser endpoints. Scrap it and start over is my general recommendation. Gemini (the protocol, not the AI engine) is an interesting but insufficient start. (I'd like to see more structured documents with notes/references at a minimum supported.)
So yes, open standards still "exist" for some value of existence. But they're far from healthy.
https://openrss.org/blog/how-google-helped-destroy-adoption-...
"Ecosystems" have a network effect. If everyone is on Facebook and you want to be seen, you have to be on Facebook. But the open web is an ecosystem. If people are going to Google Reader or web search engines to find content then if you want to be seen you create a blog.
But then Google murdered them, which damaged the ecosystem. In theory you could create a new search engine and a browser with solid RSS support etc. and if that's what people start using then you get the open web back. But that's a) not that easy to do and b) would have to gain market share fast enough that the things you want to index haven't already atrophied and died.
So now we have to push the rock back up the hill and build something good enough that it can start gaining rather than losing usage share as an ecosystem, but this time learn from past mistakes. In particular, don't let anybody become a single point of failure like Google was when they decided to kill everybody.
One was that Facebook/Twitter/etc. proved that web publishing could be made more convenient by making it more centralized, and that access to an audience was, in some way, more important than access to publishing tools. No matter how good open web publishing tools got, they couldn't compete with Facebook et. al. at providing some access to an audience, even if that audience was as small as your friends and family.
The second was a shift in who developed "internet infrastructure." In the 80s and 90s (and before), it was mainly academics working in the public interest, and hobbyist hackers. (Think Tim Berners-Lee, Vint Cerf, IETF for web/internet standards, or Dave Winer with RSS.) In the 00s onward, it was well-funded corporations and the engineers who worked for them. (Think Google.) So from the IETF, you have the email protocol standards, with the assumption everyone will run their own servers. But from Google, you get Gmail.
The third -- and perhaps most important shift -- was the move from desktop software to web + mobile software as the primary computing platform for most people. Such that even if you were a desktop user, you did most of your computing in the browser. This created a whole new mechanism for user comfort with proprietary fully-hosted software, e.g. Google Docs. This also sidelined many of the efforts to keep user-facing software open source. Such that even among the users who would be most receptive to a push for open protocols and open source software, you have strange compromises like GitHub: a platform that is built atop an open source piece of desktop software (git) and an open source storage format meant to be decentralized (git repo), but which is nonetheless 100% proprietary and centralized (e.g. GitHub.com repo hosting and GitHub Issues).
You ask how to "dismantle" this. I've long pondered the same question. I am not sure it can be dismantled. It doesn't seem like these shifts can be undone. Where I've personally ended up is that small communities of enthusiast programmers and power users can embrace open source, open protocols, and decentralization for its obvious benefits, but that it won't ever be a mass market again.
Part of it has to be zirp: when money isn’t free, companies suddenly look everywhere for extra cash flows.
Part of it is LLM training: it turns out that the free data can be packaged up and resold at astronomical valuations.
Usenet was a very open system, where iirc moderation sometimes happened per discussion group but otherwise everyone individually had to ignore bad actors (add to killfile). It scaled badly with more people and spammers. Arguably it started going downhill 30 years ago. Found a decade old discussion:
Nobody else will ever be able to do this because those analogue social networks don't exist anymore in a way that's separate from Twitter.
You used to have to go out and talk to people to find out "people are saying", but that costs time and money, and local journalists were being culled hard.
With Twitter, you can can just choose and surface the juiciest, most unhinged takes and the clicks roll in. It's like crack for both sides.
The downside is it sane-washes the lunacy by promoting some guy, who used to be propping up the bar at the local pub and explaining his theories to anyone unlucky enough to sit nearby, to national news-worthy opinion-haver.
I think that says a lot more about the media than Twitter itself. Yes, it built upon the concept, but TV reports have been doing the same thing ever since the invention of the vox pop.
But IMO it's still a large part of why it took off. When it started in 2006, every media personality was almost immediately absolutely hooked on it. You couldn't move for columnists talking about what they'd seen there, gushing about how great it was and the news articles would embed anything that would get a click. Even my university newspaper had a satirical fake "what's happening on Twitter", mocking the overuse of Twitter as a source in news media. And that was the start of the academic year 2006-7: it was already a meme within the year of launch.
Yes, vox pops have been around since it was realised that the person on the street might have telegenic hot takes, but you have to pack up, go out to a specific place and interview enough people there to get all the takes you need. That's tens of thousands in gear, a minimum of two people (camera operator, interviewer) plus a stack of editing. Twitter just meant you could sift tens of thousands of takes, possibly from all over the world and select for the maximum engagement. And because the tweets could and did go national, every kook out there was posting madly in hopes of getting noticed.
Protocols are open standards that anyone can implement and use without needing permission from or reliance on a single entity. Twitter, by contrast, has always been a proprietary platform, entirely controlled by a private company, which fundamentally undermines the comparison.
Most of the challenges Twitter has comes from not actually being a protocol. If Twitter had been designed or evolved as a decentralized protocol, it would have avoided many of the issues it faces today.
But pushing a message to a group of people that manage their own subscription via SMS was golden for a minute.
Then Twitter chose to go for the more boring route of monetization via ads and selling access to the firehose, closing up the API more and more, which then lead to the creation of App.Net as an alternative, if anyone remembers that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net
This is the way in part things were done 'back then' (and for sure even now). As people might recall search engines like excite.com (long long gone as a practical search engine) made statements that you'd never be able to pay for search rank (and google didn't monetize at first either). Noting that monetizing requires also people to set that up, sell, market and manage it.
It wasn't obvious at all that Twitter would become something of a news platform.
PG sort of made something up talking about protocols. But it was probably because of that protocol that Twitter, and news feeds in general took off.
So I think PG was not too far off on that one.
there's one to ~one long-form communication (smtp), one to many long-form (http);
one to ~one short-form (various IMs), and finally one to many short-form (twitter).
Like multicast IP
Fifty-four percent of Americans read below the sixth grade level. The character limit and resulting lack of nuance made it an ideal platform for the modern semi-literate user.
Tiktok is obviously even better, as it requires no literacy.
Techne is the Greek word for hand. Xitter is a megaphone owned by and fully utilized by a misanthropic bully. In no way shape or form is it a voice of the people. It is weighted multicast media with owners and nobility and a feed and an algorithm for prioritizing the owner and the nobility in the feed.
A protocol? Ha! We knew it wasn't a protocol or layer for anything before the so-called Arab Spring.
How many bad ideas has Paul Graham defended?
Despite the continuing proliferation of crypto-currency pyramid schemes, and their continuing ability to fool investors, they are a net negative for a planet in the throes of a climate meltdown.
Despite the reverent tones of baffled journalists speaking of LLMs as AI, despite the tech CEOs claiming that developers will be replaced tomorrow, anyone who knows anything about LLMs rolls their eyes, amd yet Paul will reliably write apologies for yet another destructive wave of investments in lousy scamware companies.
The king of bad ideas, chewed into bite size pieces for the masses.
What do i know, I'm obviously very unhip in this sort of fabricated false world.
But at some point reality catches up with everyone, but it will be at the cost of people hidden by the abstractions before it hits people like PG.
But only if memory serves correctly, I do not know the timelines off the top of my head.
(In practice, it never went much further than running apps, book reviews or calorie counters).
Edit: if you think message boards and blogs were too specific, here are a couple of other media with this property: radio and television.
sure, pg didnt communicate with the hindsight specificity i just did, but he was directionally correct for the approximately correct reason (without explicitly saying that "any new protocol must have critical adoption to be meaningful" but that is implied in pgland).
Predicting that something will be a big deal and grow fast isn't what's at issue here. And yes, even in 2009 you could have made that prediction about Twitter.
The issue here is that it is being spoken of as a protocol, which isn't just some kind of analogy. It is a word with a literal definition.
And we can now see that the end result is largely negative. It's not a public protocol, all of its content is behind a login wall. It didn't even join the fediverse.
Essentially, pg is imaginging something more like Bluesky or Mastodon and the fediverse, but for Twitter, which never came close to materializing.
I think Twitter will inevitably go down in history as being much more like an extended runtime edition of MySpace: yet another social network that became popular, made its founders who sold the company rich, but ultimately became a dying/dead entity under the next batch of management.
Every word has a literal definition, but every word also has an infinite variety of meaning, with nuance and subtlety that depends on context. It is quite obvious that Paul Graham didn't mean that Twitter was literally "another HTTP". I take the meaning to be something like "Twitter is an open platform that is widely-used enough to enable communication between other services" — not the case now, of course, but it certainly was at the time.
Certainly a different time.
On the other hand, the post is 100% wrong, it's not a protocol and to the extent it is, it was not innovative (How is it fundamentally different than facebook?)
I know this was written 15 years ago, but that's what's interesting about it, it's a remnant from a previous era and it shows what the hype was.
The same way giving people access to email opens up new behaviour, or access to networked computers allows new behaviour. Or similar to how Job's iPhone drove people to a new behaviour. Also, until they locked down their APIs in the name of control and monetization, it had a feel of access to a new protocol.* I am fully aware twitter is not an RPC specced protocol.
You both agree that expression is wrong. Why do you have to further recreate argument of the blog? These discussion based on loose associations are pointless and everyone will talk past each other.