Hacker News Reader

Comment by lich_king | Hacker News Reader

I think that's revisionism. Social media existed before online advertising. Usenet was quite massive and vibrant, countless IRC servers were maintained by volunteers, web-based forums covered pretty much the same ground as Reddit does today. All supported by the goodwill of individuals, non-profits, and businesses such as ISPs that actively wanted the internet to be interesting because they were making money by selling access to it.

The thing that changed in the mid-2000s was that we found ways to not only provide these services, but extract billions of dollars while doing it. Good for Mark Zuckerberg, but I doubt the internet would be hurting without that.

View on HN

The internet was absolutely better without that. I arrived after the original Eternal September, but there have been more and more until now everyone is perpetually online 24/7.

Now fucking everything about the world is a hustle to monetize every possible nook and cranny around content. There isn't even content anymore, it's nearly all AI slop as a substrate to grow ads on.

I am nostalgic for the era when I found "punch the monkey" irritating. People used to make websites as a labor of love.

> All supported by the goodwill of individuals, non-profits, and businesses ...

That goodwill seems to be in short supply since... hmmm the mid 2000's (rough guess). And goodwill like that seems to be honestly not even understood by the generation(s)* since then.

* Saying "generations" (plural) there because we've had quite a few people go through their formative years during this time and not just a single clearly defined generation.

That's exactly because the goodwill competes with billions of profits.

>countless IRC servers were maintained by volunteers

Most of those IRC servers ran on university networks. (So did most IRC clients, until the late 1990s.)

You can't compare 2000s social media to what it's become today. It's orders of magnitude larger today both in terms of volume of data and cultural impact.

That's no revisionism. Infrastructure always costed money, but it was relatively inexpensive to develop a social network back then. Instagram had a team of 12 if I'm not mistaken before being bought. So it was easier back then to justify what was pocket change to corporations. The potential payoff was incredible.

But eventually the money printing machine needs to start printing money.

> You can't compare 2000s social media to what it's become today. It's orders of magnitude larger today both in terms of volume of data and cultural impact.

Why? The available computing power and bandwidth are orders of magnitude more plentiful / cheaper than in the 2000s, too. I can't think of any technical reason why we couldn't have social in today's world media without advertising money.

The main non-technical reason why you can't run Facebook on the cheap is that it's expensive to respond to regulatory and PR pressures they're under. You need an army of lawyers, lobbyists, and compliance people in almost every country on the planet.

But that's in some respects a product of consolidation that we never really needed in the first place: we don't need every human on the planet on the same social network. Social circles are small and the only reason to have everyone under the same roof is if you want to be the gatekeeper for the world's ad targeting data.

The scrutiny is also a product of amount of money involved. No one is exerting as much pressure on Signal, Mastodon, etc, precisely because they're not trillion-dollar companies.

I agree completely. We would benefit a lot from people dispersing into multiple competing social media solutions, but the current state of things is that if I don't join Instagram it's likely I won't have many of my contacts available.

So while infrastructure is also much cheaper than it was 10 maybe 20 years ago, and you could in theory spin up an Instagram competitor in the cheap, people use what they use, and the money printing machine needs to print money. So we need an alternative to ads, which could be just people choosing to joint a paid social network, or another business model, but to just write off ads as something you could regulate into oblivion without consequences is just naive.

I've actually wrote before in my blog against a form of political realism, and this in a sense falls into it, but we gotta be pragmatic eventually, and take into account the dynamics that feed the powers that be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com