Alive internet theory

Yes, and no. I think a problem is critique in the form of action. There are movements such as the indie web (e.g. Neocities, Nekoweb, Agoraroad) that long for the old web in their nostalgia and form a counter-movement to the current state of the web. The websites and communities that emerge from this are more or less an imitation of the websites of the late 90s and early 2000s. My problem with this is that the indie web primarily defines itself by simply being the opposite of the web 2.0. It exists primarily as a counterculture, in which “counter” is more important part than "culture". This movement is cynical in that a better future for the internet and the web no longer seems possible, and the only way out is to escape into a nostalgically romanticized past. For me, this is more of a confirmation of the Dead Internet Theory than of the Alive Internet Theory.

> The CLICK: "Critiques kill". You want a live internet? Don't critique.

I don't see the connection. Critiques are also content.

The issue is not related to the type of content, but to what is producing it. Dead Internet is the (proven) idea that most content on the internet is produced and consumed by machines, not humans.

I think this form of critique - active, costly, valuable in itself, and barely even a critique at all - is really nice.

We need to bring back something like the MySpace era, I think.

I think it’s underrated how much devices, tools, and a handful of companies contribute to the current stage. Everybody wants to monetize consumers’ inability to do things on their own, developers’ potential to make money with their product and get locked in ($$$), and funnel people into things. But at the same time, that’s pretty much the only way anybody has been able to consistently get paid and keep up with technology by making software. It’s just very hard to get unstuck when your primary computer is a phone that is basically impossible to use as anything but a pacifier for the mind, and every platform wants to keep you from discovering anything outside of it.

I’m hopeful that better tools, AI, open source, and normalizing rewarding helpful people and things on the Internet will bring us back to what it could have been. Why is there literally nowhere to go anymore that doesn’t feel abandoned or like marketing slop? Maybe we’ll have to login with real names to access what comes after that, but maybe it won’t be so bad if we get to decide for ourselves how/what we do with it.

Go back to internet in 1999... There weren't a lot of text boxes to type into that got your content out. It required a bit of work (html, so not a lot) to get something out there!

Much like an amusement park with a sign that says "You must be at least this tall ----" the old internet was "You must be at least this smart/motivated".

Discoverability was also harder. Much much harder. Even if you did publish it might not ever be found, or seen, or used.

Today typing in a text box, and adding to a conversation (like this one) that someone else is going to read changed where the bar is.

To that end there are still plenty of focused communities that are less tribal, less emotional, than your average social media post. These remain great sources of not only information but community as well.

I find the places focused around work (like HN) and my hobbies to be the most interesting and engaging -- less "critical" and more thoughtful.

Cynicism is a dangerous instinct that captures many people. It’s easy, it’s rewarding, and it offers the psychological safety of unity. But it’s missing a key component. Hope.

I have no problem with critiques if they are accurate, insightful, and helpful. But cynics don’t think this way. Cynics seek to find the minimum viable argument to destroy anything that threatens change.

Stay awake my friend. Remain hopeful. We are hackers. We believe in the liberating potential of technology. We refuse to succumb to the lazy ignorant masses. We build.

“Only optimists build complex systems.”

The best thing I've seen in recent years in on bearblog, where people will most their email address, so if someone has something to say in reply to a post, they can simply email the author. It's not a public pissing match for who can have the hottest take.

There are a couple things that often resurface in my mind on this topic.

The first is from Teddy Roosevelt's Citizenship in a Republic speech.

> It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

The second is Ego's review in Ratatouille.

> In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.

In modern times with comment sections, influencers, talking heads, and a seemingly endless supply of opinions from those who risk nothing while judging those actually putting something out into the world, we seem to place far too much value in the critics, while dismissing the risk and efforts of those who actually create.

While some criticism is valuable or even necessary, it feels like we've gone overboard as a culture and the balance of creator vs critic is completely backwards. We have millions of people refreshing screens all day long just waiting to call the next new thing crap.

This site still looks dead to me because of the JS requiring captcha I cannot bypass. I therefore feel the critiques are relevant.

There are two webs. There's the HTTP/1.1+HTTPS HTML websites made of files by people that have no specific time of use required. Then there's constant wave of JUST POSTED NOW on the HTTPS-only HTTP/3 corporate web that only uses HTTP to deliver javascript applications. By choosing to use the later this site is contributing to my perception of dead corporate-only internet and not helping.

However, coming back to the original problem: MCP is killing the human parts of the internet. The "loud crowd" isn't radicalized humans anymore, it's bots for the most part.

Maybe we need an artificially slower version of the internet, where people are forced to write thoughtful letters (or whatever the quintessence of letters used to be) without the possibility to engage in fast-lived influencer-like content? Dunno, to be honest, at this point this is very hard to tell.

Nice, that completely defines how I felt about Twitter when I decided to delete my account.

thanks for trying it :)

https://charlottedune.substack.com/p/the-dark-forest-theory-...

It's also how we spend our time. Popular culture encourages people to only do it through devices. I spend most of my time away from devices or only passively using them (eg listening). I mostly focus on people all day at two jobs. My intuition is built on human experiences. There's a lot of variety in that in our area. On specific topics, they mostly converge towards talking points due to media, Hollywood, educational system, views in their physical area, and their religion. Maybe in that order.