The Internet Can Still Be Small And Nice, But It’s On All Of Us To Make That Work

from the take-some-responsibility dept

Techdirt is one of the few remaining independent blogs. And, in many ways, I really miss the era of independent blogging that became a thing mainly in the early 2000s. Over time, most people have moved on to either new media organizations (often funded or owned by the old media organizations) or simply embraced social media and tried to become relevant and widely followed on this or that platform. The switch from a truly distributed internet to one where most people are heavily reliant on some giant company is unfortunate — and it’s something that many of us warned about a decade ago.

Wil Wheaton just published a great opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal with the title “The Internet Used to be Smaller and Nicer. Let’s Get It Back.” I’ll get to the content of the article in moment, but first I want to discuss the choice of publication. By publishing in the WSJ, the piece is behind a paywall, though it does seem to randomly allow people to get in (often seems to work if you click through via Twitter). In some ways, the fact that Wil chose to publish in the WSJ is a microcosm of the issue that he’s discussing in the piece: you publish in the WSJ because it’s likely to attract a larger audience than publishing on your own site (and Wil does maintain and regularly publish his own independent blog which is full of great content).

But, there are always tradeoffs. Relying on someone else’s platform is often just much easier. It doesn’t involve having to maintain your own site, and it’s also often where the audience is. The issue with blogs is that you had to attract — and then keep — an audience. Tools like RSS acted as a method for keeping people coming back, but… then Google became the de facto provider of RSS reading tools, and then killed it. To this day, that move is still considered one of the defining moments in the shift from a more distributed, independent web to one that is controlled by a few large companies.

That’s not to begrudge Wil the decision to publish the piece in the WSJ. I would likely have made the same choice. The point he is making is one that more people need to see, and he’s more likely to have an impact with it there than on his own site.

As for the crux of the piece, he actually is talking about that more independent, smaller, more community-focused (rather than industry-focused) world that the internet used to be.

Of course, we mostly spent our time geeking out about the things we loved: science fiction, art, design. By the time I was starting to share my thoughts, this mostly happened on LiveJournal and proto-social-media platform Myspace. But the way I saw it, as a 20-something with a rigid sense of propriety, LiveJournal was for people who wrote fan fiction and Myspace was for high-schoolers. It’s embarrassing to think this now, but I thought I was better than that. Maybe I was insecure that I wasn’t. Either way, if I was going to find a community where I fit in, I would have to build it myself.

The thing is, I didn’t really know how to do that. Building a website at this time was complicated and time consuming. Everything had to be built using programming languages that were still relatively new. And even if you did manage to cobble something together, you sort of just had to hope it didn’t look terrible, since no one really existed to help you with design. I am still in awe of the cheap turnkey packages available today to turn any idea into a full-blown website in just a couple of hours. My first website (wilwheaton.net) took months to build, and frankly, looked terrible. Updating it was often harder—I’ve lost more work than I care to admit to a network timeout or Netscape crash.

The first solution I tried that made things easier was Blogger, a content management system that enabled me to post my thoughts immediately to the front page of my site. I appreciated how easy the tool was to use but was irked by its closed-source attitude. If I was going to be a writer, I wanted to own my words. I was lucky to discover Greymatter, which I viewed simply as an open-source version of Blogger. Both functioned similarly, but I could install Greymatter to my own server and retain control of everything I was writing. I quickly switched over.

The mention of Greymatter brings back memories for me. While Techdirt itself was never actually on Greymatter, our very first business model, back in 2000, was creating private, internal blogs full of relevant news and analysis on why the news was relevant for various tech startups. And all of those sites we originally hosted with Greymatter.

Wil talks about how there was this small community of folks who really geeked out on the power of Greymatter, and notes how Noah Grey, the designer of the software, personally helped him fix a problem he once had. I vaguely recall Noah helping me out once as well. It was all part of a community effort.

And, while Noah stopped developing Greymatter in 2002, and most people (who still wanted to keep blogging) moved on, first to Movable Type and then to WordPress and other solutions, recently Noah ran into a cascading set of difficulties which resulted in him launching a GoFundMe.

That small internet community that had existed twenty years ago reassembled to help Noah out, as Wil explains in his article:

After my friend Cory Doctorow texted me about the situation, I went directly to the millions of people who now follow my social-media accounts and blog and told them about Noah. Other OG bloggers and Internet graybeards also came together and boosted the signal. By the end of the day, we’d raised enough money to keep him and his sister in their home. By the end of the week, it was over $100K.

But, there’s a larger point here that Wil is arguing for: this should be a call to action. A reminder of the early internet, and a push to get us to think about how we get back there:

So, the story has a happy ending. But it is also, I think, a call to action. The internet imagined by people like Noah Grey is still possible, if we are willing to stand up to corporations that try to exert outrageous copyright restrictions on bloggers, governments that surveil our activity, and the trolls that use our insecurities to try to bully us out of the public sphere. After all, without normal people, the internet is just servers screaming at each other. Who would want to rule over that?

Of course, there are a lot of complexities here. Some of the success of this particular campaign was also because of these large, centralized institutions. The messages about Grey’s situation seemed to get the most traction on Twitter, a large centralized platform. And now Wil is writing about it in the WSJ, a very old and stodgy media organization.

I think the larger point is that there is room for both, and we shouldn’t cede the smaller, community-focused, independent web entirely to those centralized platforms. This world does still exist, but it’s become harder for those smaller players to survive, as so many of the users have drifted into the silos of the tech giants. It can be harder to find that content and to continue following it, and that’s also why so many people just find it so much easier to give in and embrace the intermediaries.

But at some point we need to all make an effort ourselves to embrace the internet that was. The true promise of the internet, one that enabled smaller players and independent voices to speak up and be heard.

A year ago, I wrote about the concept of the Eternal October, bringing back that promise of an early internet, but this time powered by the lessons we’ve learned in the intervening decades. I noted that there seemed to be a real hunger for that, and I think Wil’s article is just yet another example. I’ve been meaning to do a lot more writing on this topic, but the daily grind of responding to politicians, media commentators, and others all looking to destroy the underlying internet because they’re mad at this or that company has made it difficult to carve out the time to really focus on that.

Wil’s article is yet another reminder that we need to keep being reminded that this internet still exists and wonderful things are still happening on it. But it also requires some additional responsibility on all of us to not just keep it alive, but to make it thrive.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Internet Can Still Be Small And Nice, But It’s On All Of Us To Make That Work”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
48 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Routine publishing of articles from Koch-funded think-tanks like Young Voices, for one, often meant to discredit anti-trust and tech regulation.

In other shillert, there’s also the continued failing of TD to disclose that their own think-tank, the Copia Institute, receives funding from the likes of Google, Andressen-Horowitz, and more. I remember when Mike wrote an article avout Facebook’s failed cryptoshit, Libra, and he tried drilling home “You guys, the way it’s built, it’s fine and just ‘interesting’ even though Facebook is a part of it.” and Andreessen-Horowitz was one of the main backers of Libra.

I also suspect that TD will try posting anti-union articles in the near future as major union pushes are beginning to take shape and have taken shape. TD will get some shitty Koch pieces about the evil of unions that Mike, with his degree in union busti- I mean “labor relations”, can hide behind so he can keep his progressive reputation intact.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

the continued failing of TD to disclose that their own think-tank, the Copia Institute, receives funding from the likes of Google, Andressen-Horowitz, and more.

Odd, I go to Copia’s “about” page and see giant logos of both companies you mentioned. While I don’t know which specific story you’re complaining about, I’m sure I’ve seen several Techdirt posts explicitly mentioning Copia when it’s relevant.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Here’s the Libra Article.

It also has Union Square Ventures as a backer of Libra, which is another company that backs Copia.

Mike also failed to mention the ties that A-H has to Copia and Techdirt when he gave some rather glowing praise to Marc, brushing the praise a bit under the rug with “he also blocks me on Twitter, so….”

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Anyone who reads that link and sees it as “glowing praise to March” has a serious reading comprehension problem. The entire post rips Marc’s claims to shreds. And, again, it’s been 7 years since A16Z sponsored anything we’ve done.

Again, I see you have some sort of weird vendetta, but it’s some sort of strawman in your head, and not actually us.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Remember when Mike had to go to court? Wasn’t that the same Koch brothers that financed his defense?

Out of one side of his mouth, he wants an internet that will enable “smaller players and independent voices to speak up and be heard.”

But if any independent small voice speaks up HERE, their comments are hidden from view.

Yeah. You’re a serious journalist, an open minded free thinking fellow ready to promote unpopular opinions.

Prove it or admit you’re a unashamed propogandist that will say or do anything for a buck (and a small buck at that).

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Remember when Mike had to go to court? Wasn’t that the same Koch brothers that financed his defense?

They did no such thing. You have a faulty memory or you continue to make shit up.

But if any independent small voice speaks up HERE, their comments are hidden from view.

Not true at all. The trick to not having comments here hidden is not to insult the intelligence of people here by presenting blatantly bullshit information. It’s not hard. For most people.

Prove it or admit you’re a unashamed propogandist that will say or do anything for a buck (and a small buck at that).

Prove that I’m not the strawman in your head? Again, everyone is free to read the 70,000+ articles we have on this site. We don’t need to defend our track record. It’s there.

So far, all we know of you is that you can’t accurately describe anything, and have gotten multiple things factually wrong.

Go fuck off.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

an open minded free thinking fellow ready to promote unpopular opinions

Here’s a tip: if someone is “open-minded”, it’s not a personal invitation for you to use them as a doormat.

Nothing about being open-minded means I have to promote your opinion for you.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Routine publishing of articles from Koch-funded think-tanks like Young Voices, for one, often meant to discredit anti-trust and tech regulation.

sigh. Lots of people approach us with guest op-eds. I have to admit that I actually didn’t know that YV was Koch-backed. I don’t care who backs it, I care about the content. Of the YV pieces that have been submitted, I believe we’ve rejected approximately 70% as inappropriate for the site. Of the remaining, nearly all of them I sent back with explanations of where I felt their arguments didn’t make sense and asked for significant updates and changes to make it appropriate for the site — and in every case, those changes were made.

Again, I believe the quality of the pieces we have published from them stand up to the quality of anything else we’d publish.

They were not “meant to discredit” regulations, but in every case point out legitimate concerns with poorly drafted regulations, which is the same thing that Techdirt has always done.

So, if your argument is that we’re somehow a shill for Koch interests, the evidence says you’re wrong.

In other shillert, there’s also the continued failing of TD to disclose that their own think-tank, the Copia Institute, receives funding from the likes of Google, Andressen-Horowitz, and more.

We’ve always been open about Copia and Techdirt being the same organization. The “funding” you talk about is who sponsored our launch event SEVEN YEARS ago. A16Z sponsored that event and has never given us another dime. Google has sponsored a few projects, always disclosed.

I remember when Mike wrote an article avout Facebook’s failed cryptoshit, Libra, and he tried drilling home “You guys, the way it’s built, it’s fine and just ‘interesting’ even though Facebook is a part of it.” and Andreessen-Horowitz was one of the main backers of Libra.

As for Libra, we wrote a grand total of… two articles about it. Not exactly big “shilling.” And you can read the two. One is wholly negative. The other is mostly negative, with a few notes of where it could become interesting, but in which we’re mostly negative on the entire project.

Facts are not your strong point?

https://www.techdirt.com/2019/06/26/why-facebooks-libra-cryptocurrency-is-both-more-interesting-than-expected-less-interesting-than-i-hoped/
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/03/09/facebook-still-cant-admit-that-launching-libra-during-international-privacy-scandal-is-idiotic/

I also suspect that TD will try posting anti-union articles in the near future as major union pushes are beginning to take shape and have taken shape. TD will get some shitty Koch pieces about the evil of unions that Mike, with his degree in union busti- I mean “labor relations”, can hide behind so he can keep his progressive reputation intact.

Um. What? I mean, there have been lots of opportunities for use to publish union blasting articles over the last few years with efforts of Amazon employees to unionize, and other unionization projects, but we’ve not done so because there was nothing particularly interesting there.

Also, I don’t consider myself either “progressive” nor “conservative” as I frequently disagree with the entire framing of the political spectrum. This is why silly people like yourself seem to want to lump me in the “other” camp because you can’t handle the fact that not everyone has an ideology that they follow.

We follow where the facts take us. Sometimes that has us agreeing with one group or another, and sometimes those groups agree with each other, and sometimes they don’t. We’ve supported, and been supported by, many groups that align themselves on the progressive end of the political spectrum, and we’ve supported, and been supported by other groups that align themselves as more free market/libertarian. We agree with either of those groups on some things, and we disagree — sometimes heatedly, on other things.

But, again, your desire to smear us just because we sometimes are willing to work with people you insist are pure evil says a ton about you and your inability to recognize that life is more complex than your silly, childish buckets. It says nothing about us.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re:

The Charles Koch Institute has supported three projects we’ve done. All clearly disclosed and explained, and two of the three were co-funded with other organizations with very different viewpoints, but go on. On our end, we made it clear — and it was written into the agreements — that they had no say in anything related to editorial, nor did they get any preview or input into any of the content we published under those grants.

Indeed, of all the funders we’ve worked with, across the political spectrum, Koch has been (by far) the easiest, and least intrusive to work with. They have never once tried to interfere or push any views on us, nor have they complained when we publish things (as we regularly do) that go against their worldview and political outlook.

It’s also been a few years since they’ve funded anything we’ve done.

But, like all businesses, we do need to survive, and that often means finding supporters who will sponsor projects. I think our work speaks for itself, including our work that was sponsored by Koch and others.

It is amusing to me that no one has ever actually challenged or criticized the actual things we’ve done under such sponsorships, but merely tried guilt by association.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

glenn says:

The Internet was small once because that’s how things start; then they grow, or die, or somewhere in between. The Internet grew because huge numbers of people found it useful. If the Internet was ever “nice,” then it’s because mostly only nice people–or just people pretending to be nice–were using it. Now, it’s more of an accurate representation of all the people out there using it. Well, that’s the way people are. Just remember: the people out there that you’re saying are not “nice” don’t think that they’re being “mean.” (Evil people don’t think of themselves as evil.) Apparently, some people just want to kick others off the Internet because they don’t agree with their views or their behavior. How mean is that?

Drew Wilson (user link) says:

Difficulties for Smaller Players

“I think the larger point is that there is room for both, and we shouldn’t cede the smaller, community-focused, independent web entirely to those centralized platforms. This world does still exist, but it’s become harder for those smaller players to survive, as so many of the users have drifted into the silos of the tech giants. It can be harder to find that content and to continue following it, and that’s also why so many people just find it so much easier to give in and embrace the intermediaries.”

I can vouch for that. One of the projects I had on my site was a web forum. I spent multiple years maintaining it, seeding it with content to try and spur discussion. If anyone wanted to talk about a wide range of different things, they were certainly free to. However, as time went on, the forums became difficult to maintain. There was almost a complete lack of interest in it. People were far more willing to have their personal information data mined and sold to countless data companies and advertisers on Facebook than they were to simply hang out without that worry. It was frustrating and I had to leave the forum disabled because there was no point in maintaining something no one was going to use.

What’s more is that it is exceedingly difficult to even break even these days. I pretty much planned things out that once I got to certain points in my site’s development, I’d be able to finally be in the black and I could pay people to help build the site up. Those development milestones came and went and it still hasn’t happened. I’m still pretty much making up the shortfalls out of pocket.

That is not to say the traffic isn’t there. In fact, the website I worked for previously was able to pay multiple people to write content, maintain the servers, and actively promote the site. I actually had the privilege of seeing the kind of traffic the site pulled in. Mine is getting close to a third of what the other site pulled in back in the day (not bad for a single person operation), but the ad revenue is non-existent by comparison. I’ve already set up systems people can use to support me, but there hasn’t been anyone willing to support the site despite the huge volumes of quality content that is currently sitting on the server, clearly being useful to people.

People often tell me that the solution is to simply market yourself. Many of the social news platforms tend to simply focus on the larger publishing news sites like Ars Technica and Wired. They used to carry content from smaller outlets like mine, but pretty much everything submitted from a smaller outlet (not just mine) just gets marked as spam and deleted these days. This despite being obviously relevant to their respective sections and topics. One person I knew a while back actually threw his hands up in despair and just left that site altogether.

Media outlets are no better these days. Messages asking if they want to profile my startup get ignored and they tend to take an elitist tone that you aren’t worth their time despite what you could offer local community should you become big.

Then there’s the ever famous word of mouth. Society has seemingly built this idea that if you don’t already have millions of subscribers or followers within a couple of weeks or a few months, then you aren’t worth their time. You can explain until you are blue in the face that that’s not how all success works, but that doesn’t seem to phase anyone who somehow think of themselves as bigger experts than you on this whole Internet thing.

The Internet these days is downright hostile to new players. If you try and start something up, it’s been my experience that you just run into nothing but roadblocks and impediments to your success. Adsense pays flecks of dust for traffic you pull in, fewer people are willing to support you, and you are basically forced to rely on what you are able to scrape together from more automated giants like Google search. It really is no wonder so few people even attempt to start something up these days. The only real reason I do what I do these days is because I enjoy doing it. Probably the only attitude you can legitimately have because, otherwise, the deck is severely stacked against you at every level – designed to grind you down into nothing over time.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Society has seemingly built this idea that if you don’t already have millions of subscribers or followers within a couple of weeks or a few months, then you aren’t worth their time.

And every YouTube channel I follow that has gone full time spent 3 to 5 or more years building their skills and their fan base before they were able to commit to going full time. Also their fan base is of a more reasonable size, maybe 100,000. They probably will not become extremely rich, but do gain the income to do what they enjoy.

Drew Wilson (user link) says:

Re: Re:

It’s awesome to hear stories that people do make it like that. I actually saw an illusionist have the privilege of making a video with Teller (of Penn and Teller). One of the comments Teller made was that if you make enough money to pay for the basics of living (housing, food, etc.), then you have become successful – that you “made it”. I definitely agree with that sentiment.

I think that some people (for clarity: not necessarily people here) think that you have to be stupidly rich to be successful. This greatly underestimates the value of being able to do something you enjoy doing – let alone being able to do something you enjoy doing for a living which is exceedingly difficult at the best of times. My own personal goal long term has always been to earn enough to get by so I can work on my site full time. Anything after is gravy to me. Unfortunately, this tends to be a hard thing for some to understand and that factors in to the attitude that if I didn’t become ultra wealthy overnight, that someone like me is a failure and someone to be ignored rather than supported. What you offer and what you do isn’t even considered. That, ultimately, is my big source of frustration.

For further clarity, I know I’m far from alone in this. There’s probably hundreds of thousands out there in a similar situation as me. In fact, I know a artist who told me that they haven’t gotten back into art simply because they haven’t gotten around to putting a plan together to earn a living. I told that person to not stop doing art because the ability to do art is like a muscle – you need to keep exercising that muscle. It doesn’t matter if that art never gets posted somewhere online and it doesn’t matter if its just a sketch of some sort that you only spent a few minutes on one day. You really need to keep refining that skill and if you enjoy it, there’s all sorts of mental health benefits to that as well that shouldn’t be ignored.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

What you offer and what you do isn’t even considered.

That has always been the case when trying to find a publisher, or get into a listing. The people making decision for those routes have so much offered to them that they can only look at a very small fraction, and most is never looked at. It is a scale problem, one editor and thousands of submissions. A self publishers has to build a social media presence to gain attention, be that using Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram to attract people to their main publication platform of choice.

To gain the attention of an editor as a route to wider recognition is a route that mostly fails. Being active on social media, and relevant forums, and interact with creators in the same field as you are in, as being part of a community of creators on a platform gains support and cross promotion.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

I make sure to keep my adblockers in place so that those who produce this drivel won’t earn a dime from me. Though I’m starting go come around to Techdirt’s view that comments should be moderated as 95 percent of those who post here have to be the most vile Leftists (not Democrats or Liberals) that inhabit the earth.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re:

I mean, jokes on you, since we have no ads running on the site for you to block anyway. And even when we did, we let anyone turn off the ads. But nice you to, what is it you call it again, “virtue signal” that you are an asshole.

Also, no, our view has never been that comments should be moderated. Just that sometimes they need to be, and it is up to the operators of a website to decide how to do so.

Given your other comments, I guess it’s no surprise that you don’t understand.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

History

Networked computers have been around since the 1960s. The first inter-networked (network of networks) system was the ARPAnet in 1969. It used Net-10 (10.x.y.z/8) and eventually ceded that as “internal addresses” for everyone else. There are many RFCs written by luminaries such as Vint Cerf, Jon Postel*, and others.

Yet here we are 53 years later. Why?
– Regulators chomping at the bit to tax anything new into oblivion.
– Existing market manipulators ensuring they get the majority of funds, stifle competition, and prevent growth.
– Short-sighted consumers willing to put up with all this, electing the same bribed crooked politicians, paying the same high prices and having little more today than they (we) had 25 years ago.

Imagine that you invent a railway that goes from New York to LA at hyper-fast speeds. You spend your money and your investors’ money and it works. You figure out if everyone who rides pays $50 everything will work out.

You and your buddies have wings & beer every Tuesday and they say “Oh wow, your business is doing well. I think I might do the same but only between Miami to Orlando.”

And it does… for a while.

One day Karen gets on, and is dumbfounded her son, Diabeto (thanks, Seth!) can’t take up two seats, and hey, no railing is there! She calls up her congress critter and now there’s a law that says you have to let the kid have two seats, and best install those railings by last Friday or face fines.

You put the railing up, and change your Contract of Carriage — that you never needed before — to let Diabeto have his two seats.

Otre Karen gets on, and is horrified that she can’t sit in her assigned seat because Diabeto is spilling into it. Congress. Law. Now you change your CoC to say that assigned seats aren’t really assigned.

Your lawyer moves to a nicer neighborhood. Your bottom line is dragging into red, and that $50 coast-to-coast ride is now $100.

Your Tuesday happy hour buddies are no longer interested in a changing game.

Then people at the LA terminal say they can’t really handle the influx of all these East Coasters so they want to get paid. So now, all these people who paid to get to Cali have to pay Cali to get off the railway.

Someone called OSHA and they’re only too happy to tell you IT’S JUST NOT SAFE. Water-wings and seat-belts for all travelers.

The product that’s left is the Amtrak of today. It goes slowly, there are many rules, and despite what YOU paid, the rail company has to grease the hands at the other side.

I pay Cox a lot of money each month so I can connect to the global Internet… but Cox wants to ALSO charge companies (e.g. Google, Netflix, etc.) to allow them to receive my browser’s request and even reply to it.

That’s where network neutrality comes in. The companies that can afford to fight stay on. The little guys die in the wind.

It would sure be nice to have self-sustaining sites like in the old days. Regulation, mono/duopolies have killed that. It would be nice to have a non-paywall Internet… but that humpty-dumpty is done.

ARPAnet – 1969
NSFnet – 1986
Commercial Internet – 1993
Network Neutrality (concept) – 2003

It’s bad enough our democratically-elected “representatives” don’t do anything of the sort. They will continue to listen to the duopoly lobbyists, and scuttle any chance of a free-er Internet.

Small sites continue their Sysiphean motions, but the “decision makers” don’t care.

That’s why I contribute to various sites like TD, Ars, Phoronix, etc. These sites make the Internet better. If everyone who uses them did the same, and every time a pop-up on another site indicates paywall or ad-block-wall was a “time to close this window”… a different and better result would likely come to fruition.

  • Jon was a great guy. He handheld me through writing my first RFC. May he rest in peace. His contributions to us all live on.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Reality isn’t so sad!

And, in many ways, I really miss the era of independent blogging that became a thing mainly in the early 2000s

Web 1.0. It’s still there if you like. For all the hype of facetwit I use facehooker never and twit only for receiving notifications from a company that refuses to communicate via email or on it’s own website.

Blogging still exists off the big 4 sites!

either new media organizations…simply embraced social media

Web 2.0
Nasty yuck 🤮 🤢

“Relying on someone else’s platform is often just much easier”

Sorry, Mike. Pick a case choice! ‘Make your own’ just lost meaning. And you’re flat out wrong here: anyone can grab a web site for $9.99 per year. Use free tools provided or upload a blog site via Microsoft Word/writer/Pages etc.

So are you admitting “make your own “ is harder than you suggested (ans. it’s not), or are you propping the current argument whilst ignoring previous postings?

“To this day, that move is still considered one of the defining moments in the shift

Funny! I’m ROTFLMAO! Every single major use ebook creator/converter supports rss/sss/atom to ebook. Calibre, ePbr, linx.
And did you forget about Feedly? Smart? YUMPU? Ghost Print?

I’m sorry, don’t push that genZ millennial bullshite. Many of us GenX and a good chunk of GenY say bah!

Feeds is how I read your site. Calibre collects 24.5 hours of primary posts into an epub. With a custom made extension I dump all downloaded (@12:01am) books to a watched folder. A custom scripted set of CLT parses the folder and adds them to Apple Books/c/new-read. Where they sync to my phone to read each day!

As long as we and those we influence are alive…

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Tldr

In less words, private blogs are still a popular thing. Even if they fall under the radar. There isn’t an ebook automator out that doesn’t accept fees input.
Freedly has as many installs as facebook has users. The idea that Web 2.o has somehow replaced consumer web (web 1) is far from accurate.
But reach/replace is only a matter of perception.

What I was calling out was that writers and commentators on this site constantly shout “make your own” if you don’t like something because it’s easy.
And this very article implies it may not be so easy. My two part reply is
1) you contracted yourself here
2) you’re hurting independent writers when you suggest it’s not easy to make your own blog or sub-feed.

Millions of independent, free, and far less censored (less deletion and less restrictions with proper tagging) exist with hundreds of millions of users.
From curated options like Bing Newsserver and Apple’s News. To rich and lightly controlled services like Feedly, to dedicated topics like CreepyPasta and NeoVGS to literary with zero restrictions (beyond proper tagging) such as For Us and A Place of our Own The latter two are mostly erotic fan fiction… but tens of thousands of long form books, both based-on and independent are hosted. Fiction and non-fiction. News. And reviews.

The idea that the internet has “moved on” is a misnomer. Please try not to feed into it. Alternatives (past and present) exist and thrive.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: "private blogs"

You’d think so, and yet, my blog about flying and helicopter systems and all that… TWO followers.

Random comments I make (not a blog at all) on TechDirt, ArsTechnica, Phoronix – many people reply.

Sample of convenience? Sure, it’s just me and my words. And in that small sample I see orders of magnitude difference between those who read, hear, listen, engage, reply, etc.

I don’t really care for confirmation bias. I do enjoy it when ThatOneGuy, Paul T, etc. show me where I failed to understand that thing. Learning is a process. My CFI teaches me every time we fly. My track coach teaches me the perfect way to take a turn every time we drive. I love to learn. I leave with more than I came in with.

Small Internet sites do not have either the following or the skillset to do so. I wish they did. I’d send an invite to read my blog to so many people… who could help not only me… but others in my shoes.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

You seem to have mistaken my point: “those other sites win out among many users because they’re convenient and already have users” with a thing you think I said, but did not: that such a world no longer exists because it’s too hard.

So you responded to something I never said by pretending it was something different.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re Mike

Mike: Unintentionally here as well. As I took:

Relying on someone else’s platform is often just much easier

…as a statement absolute; and missed the “often” in the sentence. More than once, my apologies.
Though we need not make that quite so obvious. I actually see something very negative in the vast’ move to other platforms’ drive as it’s turning into lasyness. And a generic one-ness. Much like the boilerplate temples sites of the late 90s and early 2000s. You know who hired what companies, who used what build-a-site kits. Etc.
We had real innovations in design from the mid 2000s but by 2015/2016 we could all watch in horror as company sites moved to Facebook. Customer service moved to twitter. And everyone is the same again.

Gavron:
Have you added an index and feed page?
I ran my own blog about horror on tape from the late 2000s to just before the pandemic. Where shutdowns made finding tape libraries in person difficult.
Despite totally random posting, from one a month to multiple in the same day, and very low time-on-server counts: I had anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand feed hits per post. Depending on the film or type topic.

You could also register your blog with a feed aggregator. These services use description keywords to both direct users to your posts and suggest your posts to new readers of related posts.
Much like the now-lost useful web site aggregators of olde.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...