this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2023
89 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

40603 readers
136 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Borgzilla@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Firefox + uBlock Origin + Reader View

[–] lemillionsocks@beehaw.org 3 points 2 years ago

Reader view is pretty good at decluttering the web and uses less power on laptop and phone as well.

[–] LolaCat@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago (8 children)

I always forget how many intrusive ads are on the internet. One time I shared a link to one of my family members and they almost got a virus because of a pop-up ad. The web is actually unusable without uBlock Origin.

[–] beached@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

uBlock is terrible, use brave browser. I cant even use the internet with ublock or adblock plugins, the amount that leaks through is annoying AF.

[–] Risk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

uBlock Origin is not uBlock - uBlock was bought by some company that turned it to shit like many adblockers before it.

uBlock Origin is, IIRC, the open source superior product.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Elbullazul@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Rod_Orm@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

hey how to upload pic on comments section?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] golden_eel@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Road to hell being paved with good intentions and all, I guess. The reason sites all have the cookie permission dialog now is because of the GDPR, which has the right idea on data privacy, but the implementation wound up being so terrible that it winds up doing this. Prior to that dialog, they'd just store/read the cookies without permission (though lots of people would proactively sandbox browsers to make it a non-issue). I honestly can't decide which is worse, at this point.

I like the ones that show the prompt for "we've detected an ad-blocker" with the option you can click for "continue without disabling and not supporting us". Guilt trips work in human to human interactions, but not for random Internet prompts.

Of course I'd prefer the web simply not using cookies on every single site I visit (therefore not needing the prompt), but that's not going to happen. Sites have to monetize somehow to stay alive.

[–] ColonelPanic@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The reason sites all have the cookie permission dialog now is because of the GDPR, which has the right idea on data privacy, but the implementation wound up being so terrible that it winds up doing this.

GDPR is not at fault here though, since it does not require asking for consent if the processed data is necessary for the purpose of the provided service. For example, a web shop usually wouldn't have to ask for permission to store items in the shopping part because that is a necessary part of the online shopping process. In that sense, requiring the consent dialog for all unnecessary purposes is better as you can at least see who's trying to screw you over. Don't kill the messenger here.

I think it's also important to remember that websites can only get away with these annoyances because it a) is easily automatable and b) has been the default mode of operation for decades. If restaurant waiters today started asking guests if they could sell info on what and when you ate, who you were with, and what you looked like, everyone would be creeped out. Before GDPR, it was pretty much normalized to do the same thing on the internet without even asking for consent.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frustbox@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (26 children)

We have made mistakes.

We wanted it all to be free. It was free. I remember the early days of the internet, the webforums, the IRC, it was mostly sites run by enthusiasts. A few companies showing their products to would-be customers. It was awesome and it was all free.

And then it got popular, it got mainstream. Running servers got expensive and the webmasters were looking for funding. And we resisted paywalls. The internet is free, that's how it's supposed to work!

They turned to advertising. That's fair, a few banners, no big deal, we can live with that. It worked for television! And for a while that was OK.

Where did it all go sideways? Well, it was much too much effort to negotiate advertisement deals between websites and advertisers one website at a time, so the advertisement networks were born. Sign up for funding, embed a small script and you're done. Advertisers can book ad space with the network and their banner appears on thousands of websites. Then they figured out they can monitor individual user's interests, and show them more "relevant" ads, and make more money for more effective ad campaigns.

And now we have no privacy online. Which caused regulators like the EU to step in and try to limit user data harvesting. With mixed results as we all know. For one it doesn't seem to get enforced enough so a lot of companies just get away with. But also the consent banners are just clumsy and annoying.

And now we're swamped with ads, and sponsored content written by AI, because capitalism's gonna capitalism and squeeze as much profit as they can, until an equilibrium is reached between maximum revenue and user tolerance for BS. Look up "enshittification"

I wonder how the web would look like if we had not resisted paid content back then. There were attempts to do things differently. flattr was one thing for a while. Patreon, ko-fi and others are awesome for small creators. Gives them independence and freedom to do their thing and not depend on big platforms or corporations. The fediverse and open source are awesome.

There's still a lot of great stuff out there for those of us who know where to look. But large parts of the internet are atrocious.

[–] awooo@pawb.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I feel like that's where online payment systems really let us down. If there was an easy universal way to pay a few cents to view content and it wasn't a privacy and fee nightmare, I'm sure people would have no problem doing that. Digicash systems come to mind, I hope they could make a comeback one day.

But I also fear a lot of the damage could've been done already, kids who grow up with the internet now will probably only remember big tech platforms and may not be very eager to try out something more complicated.

[–] aksdb@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I like your suggestion with easily payable small amounts. Because the way payment currently works is just not scale-able on an individual level. Sure, $20 per month for a technical news site would be worth it ... if that was the only news site you are consuming. But it isn't. I consume multiple tech news, local news, etc. I can't get back my full worth of spent money per site, because my time is split between multiple sites; and my time is finite.

I also can't just say "well, this month I consume only site A, next only site B, etc.", because that defeats how "news" work. In the end I skim headlines (or even sometimes content) and THEN it shows what is actually of interest and where I stay longer/dig deeper/actually read full.

In a perfect world we probably could have a "tip jar" at the end of every article that people throw in digital cash when the article was worth it. Unfortunately too many people would abuse it and simply not pay at all, so authors will have to ask for payment upfront ... but then I pay for something which I don't even know will be good. Maybe after seeing the full article (not yet reading it in detail) I realize it's not the kind of content I hoped for.

That thing was indeed easier with print media. You go to the store, flick through the magazine/paper and if you like it you pay for it and go read it.

[–] nhgeek@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I worked for a startup in the 90s, pre-enshittification, that wanted to empower micropayments on the web. Obviously, even when mostly "frictionless", users rejected the concept. Capitalism is going capitalize, but this is also the fault of users who demand "free".

[–] jarfil@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Nowadays there is crypto, some of it is already perfect for micropayments. But it needs to be integrated into the browser/app to be truly frictionless, and there should be a "get your money back" option for the content that's click bait and not worth the asking price. Unfortunately the largest browsers are Chrome and Edge, by companies who aren't all that interesting in changing the way things are.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] interolivary@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago

this is also the fault of users who demand “free”.

This is in my opinion the crux of the matter. People want content for free: they won't pay for it directly and they won't watch ads (because they're often much too intrusive.) Of course the root problem is the economic system, but barring a near global revolution that's not going to change

[–] WhoRoger@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The first big problem was malware in ads (and web in general). This has caused people to install adblocks on their parents' and friends' devices.

Then there were the annoying ads: autoplaying videos, popups and other shit. This has caused a lot of normies to install adblockers themselves.

Then the privacy concerns, where even basic users notice that they look at a product on one store and now the recommendations follow them everywhere.

But the marketing companies keep pushing, and the OS providers like Google, MS and Apple keep restricting what you can install on your machine, this is a full-on war between users and the big tech.

Nobody was complaining about small banner ads. But they just have to keep pushing and break things. It's like with banks, or mythological creatures - insatiable.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Running servers got expensive

No it didn't. Running a server today is dirt cheap compared to the bad old days. So is registering a domain. Getting a TLS certificate doesn't cost anything at all.

However, there are a lot more people here now. It used to be you could feasibly run a moderately popular website off a single server and it'd be fine. Now, with billions of people on the Internet, you need an army of servers distributed around the world if your site gets even remotely popular.

But also the consent banners are just clumsy and annoying.

That's a feature, not a bug. Consent banners were manufactured as a way to turn public opinion against GDPR and generate political pressure to repeal it. “Look at how those Europeans ruined the web!” GDPR was supposed to pressure these unscrupulous advertisers into giving up their spooky tracking, but they did this instead. And it's working—most people blame GDPR for ruining the web, not the sleazeballs who actually ruined it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] amir_s89@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I use uBlock Origin in Firefox, with all the boxes ticked. It's not only adds it blocks also plentiful of trackers. Just to make my visits on today's web usable. As a result, my laptops / smartphone resources are saved up, more battery time or cooler device as example.

Personally I like ads, totally ok for it - if informative, sharing some kind of relevant value with greater good. Companies should let the product or service itself advertise, not throw these on people constantly.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] bigbox@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)
[–] sup@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Lemmy feels like the old internet IMO and I'm really enjoying it so far! :)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Nyanix@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Barbarian@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I upvoted and chuckled, but please use Imgur or similar links while the entire ecosystem is being hit by the Reddit hug of death :)

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

With luck; July 1^st^ will be the last Hug of Death reddit ever gives...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Melody@lemmy.one 0 points 2 years ago

Oh the irony.

[–] vbhaop@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

The communists cut many internet cables for some anti-capitalism reason!

[–] tarneo@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I made a blogpost about that, and I promise you'll see no ads, no cookies, no JavaScript, just the blogpost.

[–] Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Full text RSS would make it even more readable!

[–] tarneo@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Finally got it working, but it's a little hacky. It works in my two RSS readers, can you confirm it works for you too?

[–] Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago

Works great! Thank you!

[–] bigbox@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Excellent post, and I love your sites minimal, old school design. I finally found the right corner of the internet where people actually think about this kind of thing! It's so frustrating how over the years search engine results just give you bloated, pointless articles that exist only to rank high in SEO and get ad revenue.

I too have been using the site:reddit.com method, but it sucks to essentially only have one for-profit website as the one I use to research things.

[–] tarneo@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

Thanks! Stay tuned because I'll probably add some kind of webring to the blog soon

[–] raubarno@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

I'm gonna send you a reply to your article some time later. I am too tired right now.

My short review is that you want to separate the backend from the frontend. Backend processes your request and emits a JSON response. Frontend, be it CLI, web client or a smartphone app, just sends your request and shows the response in a human-friendly way. I did it in a similar fashion for my project.

I just looked up into my search history and saw I am either:

  1. not confident with the website address I remember;
  2. looking for an API documentation;
  3. looking for some real-world projects (when choosing one of several frameworks/ways of doing things);
  4. confused AF and needy for hints (especially for large problems or life/long-term choices);
  5. looking for images/visual ideas;
  6. looking for what my old friends do now (am I a boomer?).

Well, for the last two I cannot think of any solution. Problem (2) can be substituted with in-reference search (cppreference.com, lib.rs, docs.rs, developer.mozilla.org). However, sometimes I want to be sure that I am using the real link to the real thing, not the scam one. For example, I sometimes want to get access to the official latest GLSL specification, or sometimes overhyped people tend to name things by their marketing brands. Like, I ask 'What is X?' (WhatsApp, for instance) and I get a response 'X is .. just X, it's really good' and when I need to find what is X, I usually search on Wikipedia, because on the web search I would only see the promotions of X.

(I'm out, wait for chapter 2)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›