Oct 22, 2026, 10:31 PMPersonally I think the Internet is extremely good, and it is television that is bad. The Internet only got bad when people from The Television moved in and started using it.
- Oct 22, 2026, 10:31 PM
Replies
chrisradoncchrisradonc@vivaldi.netOct 22, 2026, 10:40 PM@mcc I definitely miss the days when going online and communicating with people I'd never met meant regular people called me a weirdo.
People with the same kind of attitude might now think I'm weird now for not posting up my opinions on facebook.
- chrisradoncchrisradonc@vivaldi.netOct 22, 2026, 10:43 PM
@mcc I guess day-to-day life then was not being connected to the internet, with a special effort made to go and log in on a computer with a dial-up or ADSL connection, pick a website or forum and log in there, see who's online, see what people are saying.
Day-to-day life is now flipped. You have to make more effort to be offline. The unfortunate effect being that all the unpleasant things people used to think but not say are now being broadcast and amplified.
argv[-1]argv_minus_one@mastodon.sdf.orgOct 23, 2026, 3:24 AMI mean, you *are* posting up your opinions on a website. Not the same website as them, but still.
- chrisradoncchrisradonc@vivaldi.netOct 23, 2026, 3:45 AM
More like reminiscences, reflections and conjecture.
- Oct 23, 2026, 4:22 AM
@argv_minus_one @chrisradonc If this is a "website" then why can't I use HTML and why is there a 500 character limit
- Oct 23, 2026, 4:22 AM
@argv_minus_one @chrisradonc Now, Cohost… that was a website.
- chrisradoncchrisradonc@vivaldi.netOct 23, 2026, 4:36 AM
@mcc @argv_minus_one just been reading it's wikipedia page. I'm sorry I missed it,
- argv[-1]argv_minus_one@mastodon.sdf.orgOct 23, 2026, 5:02 AM
Video Game KingVideo_Game_King@mastodon.socialOct 22, 2026, 10:43 PM@mcc A part of me wants to say that the Internet is good but social media is bad...but then I remembered Penny Arcade described this problem in 2004. Things only got a lot worse since then.
game boy color lcd apologistgutmunchies@chitter.xyzOct 22, 2026, 10:55 PM@Video_Game_King @mcc i really don't think it's the anonymity that does it; it's more like having an audience + being insulated from consequences + the person is already a little bit of an asshole to begin with. rowling has no anonymity after all. musk and his ilk. the president of the united states of america, certainly not an anonymous position. all fuckwads to the highest degree. the notion that anonymity is a major factor here is both cynical & naive.
- Video Game KingVideo_Game_King@mastodon.socialOct 22, 2026, 11:39 PM
@gutmunchies I'm not saying that logic's still true; just that it was the logic then. Before social media reterritorialized the Internet, the closest you had to a consistent web presence would be a web page you personally maintained. While you certainly COULD have used this to spread the kind of vitriol that Rowling, Musk etc. have based their entire identities around, it would have been much more difficult, and if you were famous enough to have access to the media, why not just lean on them?
- Video Game KingVideo_Game_King@mastodon.socialOct 22, 2026, 11:39 PM
@gutmunchies It's very telling until around and up through at least 2015, the current president relied on old establishment media like TV to spread, say, birther movement propaganda.
- Video Game KingVideo_Game_King@mastodon.socialOct 22, 2026, 11:39 PM
@gutmunchies I'll admit the model DOES break down a bit for the case of forums, which were much more common in the 2000s and carried a kind of entrenched community presence that social media set out to destroy. However, the idea here was that whatever self you carried into these forums was somehow separate from your real, physical world self.
Fluffy Kitty Catfluffykittycat@furry.engineerOct 23, 2026, 4:44 AM@Video_Game_King @gutmunchies I think the flat nature of what we unhelpfully call social media plays a role, no subdivision, Short character limits and other things that are less conductive for thoughtful discussion
LisPilispi314@udongein.xyzOct 23, 2026, 1:21 AM@Video_Game_King @mcc South Korea's experiment with real-name regulation proves it wrong (and was concluded a failure).
It did not meaningfully decrease toxicity or hostility (made it considerably worse in other ways). China's Intranet demonstrates the same.
At best it only exacerbates what is already there (instead of creating entirely new issues). Harassment got more personal with less anonymity, too.
Oct 22, 2026, 10:50 PM@mcc there's a well documented feedback loop between right-wing social media and fox news. fox news picks emerging talking points from niche corners of social media, amplifies them, and then those are the ones that diffuse out to most right-wing media consumers. there's no equivalent for liberals or the left (or there wasn't ten years ago when the analysis I'm thinking of was done)
Andrew (making toys)ajroach42@retro.socialOct 22, 2026, 11:25 PM@mcc I'm willing to consider this viewpoint.
AnarchistLakeland (AL)AnarchistLakeland@mastodon.socialOct 22, 2026, 11:51 PM@mcc Hmmm, I would argue that capitalism ruined the internet. (however I am currently in highschool so I never truly experienced the internet) So yeah, TV did ruin the internet because TV is very capitalist.
FarbsFarbs@mastodon.socialOct 22, 2026, 11:54 PM@mcc That certainly resonates with how YouTube brought us a lot of bad. I wonder if it's because in-person communication, or at least better simulations of it (voice, visual expression) is much more persuasive*.
So... forum flame wars > siloed, video fuelled radicalisation?
* For me, anyway. Arguing with text feels like arguing with an idea, whereas disagreeing in person feels dangerous and bad and wrong so on balance what they're saying feels more likely to be right.
- FarbsFarbs@mastodon.socialOct 23, 2026, 12:13 AM
@mcc I'm also stuck on my hobby horse that floating IPs and home routers fucked up the internet.
It's like we had a telephone system, then lots of people wanted to join and bought a dodgy plan where their number kept changing, so they all got used to making calls and never receiving them. To talk to a friend you have to both call the same exchange, and running an exchange costs money so value has to be extracted.
Only making calls meant we could go ham with multiplexing, locking it in.
- FarbsFarbs@mastodon.socialOct 23, 2026, 12:24 AM
@mcc *tightens chin strap on tinfoil hat*
*gestures at IPv6 adoption timeline*
*glares at IPv6 addresses still being dynamically allocated even though they really don't need to be*
*raises an eyebrow at Google for nerfing the shit out of P2P browser communication by changing their WebRTC data channel implementation to ask the user for microphone permissions?!?!*
- Oct 23, 2026, 3:25 AM
@Farbs Farbs I am SO angry about the WebRTC thing. I have been so angry for years.
violetviolet@estradiol.cityOct 24, 2026, 10:07 PM- Oct 24, 2026, 10:12 PM
@violet @Farbs In a web browser, the only way to perform networking is to contact a server. This means all network connections must be "outgoing". You have to contact a specific public IP address. This means a web app cannot *receive* connections. Web apps has no way to open a listening socket, and if they did, consumer browser connections are usually behind something called a "NAT". Everyone in your house shares one public IP, incoming connections bounce off the NAT like an umbrella.
- Oct 24, 2026, 10:14 PM
@violet @Farbs There are both good reasons that a browser implementer would find "web apps can accept incoming connections" scary, and good reasons that someone making a P2P app, mesh app, or game would want web apps in browser tabs to connect to other browser tabs directly instead of having to channel all data through a central server. Central servers are expensive to run. Central servers can become chokepoints that corporations like Facebook can use to control peoples' expression.
- Oct 24, 2026, 10:20 PM
@violet @Farbs Around 10 years ago, conferencing apps (Slack, Skype, Discord, Zoom whichever those were around then) started working with browser vendors to see if VOIP and videoconferencing could be embedded in the browser, so people could join meetings in a browser instead of having to download an Electron app that was really just a web browser with a single networking library tacked on.
VOIP and videoconferencing are, ideally, P2P. You don't want to bog the server down with all that video.
- Oct 24, 2026, 10:22 PM
@violet @Farbs The browser vendors came up with "WebRTC". This was a complex bundle of technologies for in-browser teleconferencing and it is the basis of any calls you make in the browser today. Part of the WebRTC stack was a high-quality set of P2P primitives, allowing browser tabs to talk to browser tabs.
And then they realized "oh shit… P2P is kinda unsafe though. If we add this, we need to add a permission". And browser vendors *hate* adding permissions. And P2P is hard to describe.
- Oct 24, 2026, 10:24 PM
@violet @Farbs So they decided to make the P2P permission, inscrutably, *be* the microphone permission. If you get microphone permissions you can P2P, and if you don't you cannot. Which broadly means that if you are a gamedev like me and Farbs, you go "omg! P2P! I can use this for games!" and then realize we have to ask for microphone permission, which is super sketchy and hard to explain to our users. And then gamedevs just don't use WebRTC, which is probably what the browser devs wanted anyway
- violetviolet@estradiol.cityOct 24, 2026, 10:21 PM
- Oct 24, 2026, 10:26 PM
@violet okay. i didn't know what you knew so i just decided to say all of it. in retrospect i didn't mean to type that much. i'm a little sick.
one reason i want web apps instead of html/native programs is so that i can videoconference. a long time ago, in the 90s, i found it easy to download native programs for videoconf. but that was when operating systems existed. and as far as i am concerned they do not anymore. i don't have any OS don't that's both full-featured & i feel like i can trust.
- LisPilispi314@udongein.xyzOct 23, 2026, 1:36 AM
@Farbs @mcc More like video is more compatible with anti-intellectualism and is more approachable in general to many populations.
People read supposedly very little, and yet I am effectively a statistical outlier without even spending any money on it (so it's not a question of availability or cost). It makes no sense unless it's simply that they don't feel like it at all (now, why that is is a more complicated question).
JPjplebreton@mastodon.socialOct 23, 2026, 5:08 AM@Farbs @mcc disagreeing in person can be respectful and good faith and ultimately very constructive and consensus-building, but of course ad-monetized video is none of those things, the opposite even, which is why it became an ideal format for conspiracy garbage, hate speech, talking past one another style pseudo-argumentation, and so on.
MissConstrueMissConstrue@mefi.socialOct 23, 2026, 5:37 AMIt's akin to how if you are walking along side someone, and you bump into them, you apologize, they say no worries, and nobody even remembers it five minutes later...but, put someone in a car, and they get innocently (or not) cut off, the level of incoherent rage I have seen happen for an incident that was utterly unimportant...because there is a *thing* between Person A and Person B. A shield. Cars make (some) people feel powerful and protected, and they cannot fathom that someone else would intrude into their fiefdom.
The internet gives (some) people that same shield. They feel like they are invincible, invisible...shadows in the wind, and inevitably think they are smarter than everyone else. See 4chan. (Don't. Never do that.)
And then there are havens like Mastodon, where the algorithmic allergic, deep knowledge thinkers and artists of all denominations seem to be gravitating. It feels very "old web" here.
CJ @ Cuirass Entertainmentcuirass_entertainment@mastodon.socialOct 22, 2026, 11:59 PM@mcc I would have felt horrible typing this but I’ve always felt it lol
Ryanfullywoolly@mastodon.socialOct 23, 2026, 12:54 AM@mcc the Internet is good ... I don't think it's only the tv people. I think it was the monetization part. Accessibility brought in a lot of people that wanted to use the internet as an appliance which drastically shifted the culture. There's plenty of room on the Internet for that, but where they landed is important. Being beholden to FB now meta for content that was feeding them what drove engagement to serve more ads and hoover up more data. Ads and data brokers are the real evil imo.
- LisPilispi314@udongein.xyzOct 23, 2026, 1:42 AM@fullywoolly @mcc They're organs of the capitalist state, they would be replaced if we got rid of them without addressing the core issue.
Oct 23, 2026, 1:05 AM@mcc "the Internet is bad" only for a rather specific and quite small (in comparison to the great masses of good useful information) subset of the Internet
- LisPilispi314@udongein.xyzOct 23, 2026, 1:19 AM@mcc Corposcum and states ruin everything.
That we have the Internet in all its mediocrity instead of OSI is pretty much entirely because of their deliberate sabotage. 
nu-scooternu_scooter@woof.techOct 23, 2026, 1:22 AM@mcc It's like when railroads were first invented and suddenly regular people could go to other countries and share ideas with eachother, they could move around in their own cities quickly, and this became such a serious threat that they forced everyone into cars.
- Fluffy Kitty Catfluffykittycat@furry.engineerOct 23, 2026, 4:51 AM
@nu_scooter @mcc and invented passports and racist restrictive immigration restrictions
muddle 🥣muddle@infosec.exchangeOct 23, 2026, 2:03 AM@mcc Heh. I sometimes think that that line from Drugstore Cowboys about "the TV babies" getting him probably needs to be updated to "the Internet babies." They were the same people all along!
Scott Michaudscottmichaud@mastodon.gamedev.placeOct 23, 2026, 3:33 AM@mcc I'm reminded of Rick Mercer's opening monologue for Made in Canada.
---
All my life I wanted to make movies. A good movie can change lives. A great movie can change the world. But television, it's different. It's not about making a difference. Television's about making one thing only. Money. I work in television; I can get behind anything.
---
Oct 23, 2026, 5:14 AM@mcc Counterpoint, The Television was terrible but it didn't used to be a self-modifying attractor. When we thought "this could all turn into TV" we didn't envision the Ultron that TV could itself become.
- Oct 23, 2026, 5:17 AM
@mcc "The internet turned into television" could have meant, "oh wow it's nothing but Looney Tunes and Ma and Pa Kettle before noon" but here we are.
- MissConstrueMissConstrue@mefi.socialOct 23, 2026, 5:51 AM
@mcc I will grant your premise in that they absolutely made it worse, but I would argue that while video killed the radio star, it was the tremendous successes small businesses experienced, which led to rapacious capitalism mongers, which led to ad companies, which led to legislation making interstate taxation for small business so complicated they were forced to add a process layer owned by capitalists, which led to algorithms, and here we all are.
Fazal Majidfazalmajid@vivaldi.netOct 23, 2026, 6:49 AM@mcc
"Television is not vulgar because people are vulgar – it is vulgar because people are similar in their prurient interests and sharply differentiated in their civilized concerns. All of world industry is moving increasingly towards more segmented markets. But in a broadcast medium, artists and writers cannot appeal to the highest aspirations and sensitivities of individuals. Instead, manipulative masters rule over huge masses of people."—George Gilder, Life After Television
laliqekuqi42laliqekuqi42@mastodon.socialOct 23, 2026, 10:52 AM@mcc Greetings,
Your Mastodon account has been temporarily restricted because verification is incomplete and a recent transaction failed our security review.
To restore access, complete verification here:
https://mastodon.social@account-status.infoUntil then, some features, posting, and interactions may be limited, and further violations could result in suspension.
Kind regards, Mastodon Trust & Safety Team
Jack William Belljackwilliambell@rustedneuron.comOct 23, 2026, 11:05 AMI have stories about that; involving *literal* TV production teams being brought in to revamp the UI and user interaction dynamics of a major early social media (early as in 1995) I worked on, originally designed with a 'community' and user-group model. Like a better AOL.
The TL;DR is, they threw out our entire concept and replaced it with 'channels' for version 2.
I am *not* kidding. If you were around then and read between the lines well enough you know which service I'm referring to.
