Anyone think Web 2.0 is awful?

Submitted by Snowy in AskRaddle

I think I can't bear Web2.0 since 10 years ago... Here are the reasons:

The "Like button" system on social media: So everyone can buy "Likes" from marketing companies if they have enough money. The upvote/downvote system also. (But I think no marketing companies targeted raddle now, that's why I am here.)And fools always love to look at how many "likes" they can get.

The “recommended” system: Obviously, this is a kind of advertisement. And adblocking software usually won't block this kind of ads. They claim the recommendation is base on the browsing history, but browsing history only? And they don't allow you to disable the “recommended” system.

The real name Facebook: Since 1X years ago, I wondered why people dare to use their real name on the internet via a website, so everyone can know their personal information easily and no one on there dare to say they are not good/unhappy and misfortune. The whole site looks like a club of stimulant users. And I wondered society can't figure out this simple fact for 1X years. (But if only enterprises and political figures using Facebook, it would be better than everyone using it, because they have to act like perfect.)

Twitter: What the hell...I can't use only 140/280 characters to express myself. I won't limit my thoughts for this shit. A website for people who have dyslexia???

Censorship: Yes, they own the server, so they can delete everything they dislike and leave everything they like to let you read. There is no free lunch.

Chrome: They set up many functions only chrome can use, for example, the speech notes website.

Ads+tracking: Anyone on here does not use ad blocking software? The software I using AdNauseam.



You must log in or register to comment.

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

Well, I think a lot of these things all fall out of the capitalist model, right? Web sites and services need money, and most people can't or at least won't pay, so it has to be funded by advertising.

And I think the rest of the evils flow out from there. The intrusive data collection feeds advertising. The inflammatory content gets more attention, which feeds advertising. Twitter's short post length makes for rapid fire interaction, which tends to be more emotional, so people spend more time there than they do on a traditional blogging site. That helps Twitter's advertising revenue. Facebook is designed to be addictive because it generates more revenue.

I think our only hope for an internet that doesn't suck are the free software (free as in freedom, not proprietary but with no price tag) projects that are working on as easy as possible host-your-own-x options. I host my own email, cloud music software, photo software, text documents, spreadsheets, calendaring software, and so forth but it's not anything I can recommend to friends and family because the level of technical knowledge you need is too high. I work in software and system administration, so it's my job to know all I need to know to run this stuff. My friends and family members that are nurses, doctors, chefs, mechanics, plumbers, teachers, and landscapers don't.

But there are projects like NextCloud (personal cloud), (personal cloud), IPFS (distributed storage), Beaker Browser and the dat project (decentralized websites), (decentralized storage), SafeNetwork (decentralized storage and computation), FreedomBox (easy hardware for hosting your own personal cloud), Yacy (decentralized web search), and others like them all trying to make freedom-respecting and privacy respecting replacements for Google/Facebook/Twitter/Amazon/DropBox that the average person can use. None are good enough today, but work is underway.


mofongo wrote

Thank you for freedom box, I was interested in something like it to synch data from my phone.


Snowy OP wrote (edited )

I was thinking about the correlation between Facebook and mental illness...they using their real name to design a fake self on Facebook, which reminds me of the concept of schizophrenia. Or maybe after they give every best moment in their life on Facebook ...the real person is a mummy that after being sucked out all of happiness.

When the time of the rise of Facebook, I remember that many people felt worried about using their real name on the internet, and the mainstream media used tons of propaganda to promote this website. I thought it's a site that most people just want to use it for a few months, but I was wrong. The whole thing is ...designed to rise.

3 things people are bombarded by mainstream media that I thought it won't being prosperous: Facebook/Twitter

Bitcoin(I thought: A tool for freaks getting child porn)

Terrorism(When I was a child, I thought: why all of you don't need a trial to prove bin Laden is guilty?)

But I was terribly wrong...this crazy world.

So, the software you mentioned on here, most people on this planet won't use it since the mainstream don't give them a damn, but people on this website may really need them. Especially the Facebook banned tons of things recently.

(click Upvoted)


TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

I like the react buttons than discord uses, it's like "like", but you can choose from all of the unicode smileys and even other ones too.

I use ublock origin, decentraleye and privacy badger for ads+tracking. decentraleye makes the pages load fast.


Snowy OP wrote

My setting is AdNauseam+decentraleye+privacy badger and HTTPS everywhere on firefox.

I often wonder after so many years, people didn't realize all these shit but let it became worse and worse. It's mad.


TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

reddit went from web 1.0 to web 2.0 since around the time raddle exists and redditors dont give a fuck either lol


bloodrose wrote

Gods, yes. The damned programmers are now programming to our addiction centers so now everyone is addicted to the shit.


ziq wrote

Wait til you see web 3.0


bloodrose wrote

It isn't that the AI's will act more human, it's that we'll act more like AI's. Look at how we reacted to a bot - like it was a person saying things. Children apparently already value a computer's input over a human's. We'll be trying to conform ourselves to the machine. I mean, we're already doing it now.


Cheeks wrote

Burn it and build a decentralized model. But I'm sure they will find a way to exploit that through network participation leading to a secular groups governance.


Mango wrote

As my merely existence is to exploit web application for bugs, yes Web 2.0 is awful.


[deleted] wrote


TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

on raddle upvotes are flawed, people use them to agree/dissagree but also to distinguish between relevant/irrelevant comments.


celebratedrecluse wrote

yeah, democracy has its drawbacks, and as (mostly) anarchists I'm glad we can have critiques of specific implementations of democracy like the upboat system


TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote (edited )

Yeah we're lucky to not use votes for site wide important decisions


Fossidarity wrote

Actually votes do influence important site decisions, first of all they decide the order of comments and secondly they influence people their perception of the actual comment themselves. Many times I noticed how I first looked at the vote count before reading the actual comment. That's why I'm using a theme without vote counts now.


Snowy OP wrote

If you selling a shitty product, you can buy countless upvotes to let anyone who believes in this system. The problem is people are so easy to trust a system such easy to buy.