Replies

• 

  Chewiechewie@mammut.gogreenit.net

  Oct 4, 2026, 10:29 AM

  @kasperd Interesting, but "90% of the internet is bad", what does that include? Maybe that's only because 90% of the internet shouldn't really be indexed.
  For example, if I reply to a post on here with "lol" or a sarcastic comment, that creates content, but it's totally useless to anyone who doesn't care about the the original post, yet it will be indexed, and will be added to the "corpus" of the internet.
  My reply will probably count as the "90% of bad content" as it's mostly useless, but that doesn't mean it wasn't useful to either validate the original poster, or handy at that point in time as part of the "conversation".

  I would say 90% of the internet is "irrelevant to me", but a different 90% will be "bad" for someone else.

  Although the internet is full of shit, I think it is a long way from being "dead" if people use it "properly".

  💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
• 

  kasperdkasperd@westergaard.social

  Oct 4, 2026, 11:53 AM

  The exact percentage isn't really the important point. I will argue that even if everybody agreed on what content to label as "bad" there still isn't a well defined way to calculate the percentage.
  
  There is a practically infinite number of URLs pointing to on-the-fly generated content. And 0% of those are useful in isolation, but many of them are part of a hierarchy of pages that is useful for some people if you start from the intended entry point.
  
  There is also content that is objectively bad regardless of who you are as a visitor. Here I am thinking of fraudulent or otherwise malicious content which may serve some nefarious purpose of the publisher but is of negative value to every visitor.
  
  And there is an overlap between those two classes of content, meaning people do create infinite hierarchies of malicious pages generated on the fly.
  
  With an infinite number of malicious URLs and an infinite number of well-meaning URLs that are only useful if reached through the intended path, it's meaningless to talk about percentages of overall content.
  
  We can talk about percentages of good vs. bad content you will see assuming some way that you are reaching said content. For example I have at times opened Facebook and counted good and bad posts in my feed of which there would sometimes be 96% bad content and 4% good content. (The bad content was not from people I was connected to, it was all content I never asked for in the first place, but which Facebook decided to put in my feed anyways.)
  
  Your final sentence seems to also be the conclusion of the video. We just need to figure out how to use it properly.
  💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0