Showing posts with label social media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social media. Show all posts

2025-12-16

Internet Search: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow

In the beginning (yesterday) the Internet was an academic network and then the Free-nets (including the National Capital FreeNet of which I was an early member and information provider) were created providing a place for community organizations and bringing the Internet to the people.

In these early days, before the World Wide Web, the Internet was primarily text based and used search tools known as Archie, Gopher, Veronica and Jughead to search for documents stored online. People also used services such as Usenet to access the equivalent of today’s web forums and IRC (Internet Relay Chat) as a group and private real time messaging service. Most importantly we all had Email, which IMHO is still the most important thing the Internet gives us as individuals.

Then came World Wide Web and HTML and everything changed. The Internet was still non-corporate being primarily educational institutions, non-profit organizations and individuals but that soon changed, many say for the worst, when corporations were allowed onto the network. I would certainly miss online banking and shopping and streaming services have given us access to non-North American “television” we would not have had otherwise.

The WWW gave individuals an opportunity to have their own place on the Internet through personal websites (also called Home Pages back then). Internet Service Providers would provide customers with web storage they could use to create their own web pages using HTML and sites like GeoCities made it even easier. Then came Myspace, a sort of Facebook lite. There were other sites serving the same user base that wanted their own place on the Internet and they all co-existed peacefully. And then came Facebook and everything changed for the worst. Most people criticize Facebook for it’s tracking of users and monetization of their and their “friends” personal information, but to me the most evil thing about it is it’s business model of trying to keep users away from the open Internet and dependent on their proprietary site.

At one time, long before Facebook, there was even a print Internet Yellow Pages that listed all the significant websites on the World Wide Web but it quickly became necessary to have some online tool for people to find what they were interested in without depending on prior knowledge, friends or just luck.

When we started using the Internet for research or to find information were not looking for specific answers to specific questions but for resources where we could find those answers.

And perhaps the best tool for that was the original Yahoo Directory which was a hierarchical listing by subject of web resources curated by librarians to ensure the legitimacy of the sources. Other directories also existed, particularly subject specific ones. As the Internet grew exponentially keeping up a complete directory became an impossible task, or at least economically impossible to compete with search engines that also existed at that time,

In the beginning we used search engines the same as way the Yahoo Directory, to find resources where we could find the information we were seeking. Perhaps the best of the early search engines and my personal preference was Digital Equipment Corporation's AltaVista search engine which allowed users to do a Boolean Search using AND, OR & NOT operators. Soon people started using search engines to find specific answers to specif questions.

Alta Vista and almost all other search engines were surpassed by the original Google search engine whose algorithm impressed everyone so much that it became the dominant search engine. It’s advanced search mode also allowed Boolean searches. It became my (and most peoples) search engine of choice for a long time.

Then came the enshittification of both search and the Internet as a whole.

The enshitification of search happened as Google gained an effective monopoly on Internet search, so much that to search the Internet became “to google” as nearly all searchers were done using Google. And then we saw the gradual degrading of Google as it monetized it’s search engine. We would see promoted links at the top of search results that were paid for. Searches for, as an example, Ford F-150 would have Chevy Silverado as the first listed result because General Motors paid for that. And then we started getting results in the form of answers to questions rather than as links and people referring to “Google said/told me” rather than referring to the sources Google found.

Somewhere along the line the advanced Boolean search capability disappeared from Google and then it became contaminated by LLM chatbots spouting spurious answers and information. It may be possible with enough effort to turn off the AI slop in Google but personally I would not trust that that is so. Google’s once famed reliability is now in the dumpster. And of course Google has become infamous for tracking it’s users.

People have started to slowly move away form Google to privacy supporting search engines like DuckDuckGo, although it has been criticized for it’s optional AI features although it is a lot easier to disable them in settings than with Google. I personally use the non-AI version of Duck Duck Go (https://noai.duckduckgo.com/) which has the AI features disabled. I only wish it had obvious Boolean search capabilities, although there are apparently ways to do Boolean searches and other advanced search techniques for DDG (that I did not know about until I researched this post).

But the enshitification goes beyond Google search and has infected the whole of the Internet/World Wide Web. Over the last 20 years or so we have seen a proliferation of fake news and disinformation sites and social media has increased the amount of misinformation and misinformation online by orders of magnitude.

But the user is also to blame. The reason for Facebook’s success is the fact that consumers today put convenience above all else and when you add the super convenient magic answer machine LLM based AI chatbots that base their answers on whatever is repeated most (the GIGO principle) the result is inevitably garbage.

Tomorrow’s search function requires a better way for those of us more interested in accuracy than convenience. Let us suggest a new model that puts a boolean search engine on top of a directory of trusted sites and builds from there.

We start with an original Yahoo type directory curated by librarians and subject specialists. The directory is hierarchical starting with broader subjects going to lower ones. One can browse or search directory to find the field of knowledge you are interested in and select relevant websites from there.

The curators will not attempt the impossible task of vetting all contents on the websites/resources but they will be selected according to the trustworthiness of those responsible. Different categories of resource will be vetted differential according to their nature.

Information resources on science, the humanities and the social sciences will be judged according to the reliability of the content as ascertained by the trustworthiness of those responsible for them.

There will be a general information category for encyclopedias and similar broad works.

Journalistic sources will be judged again according to the journalistic principles of the organizations, ethical, fact checking, distinguishing opinion from news content, etc.. Sites that are solely expressing opinions will be identified as such and where possible identified according to bias, right leaning, left leaning, etc. Satire sites will be identified as such for those that cannot figure that out.

Political sites will not be vetted according to accuracy but according to whether they are actually who they say they are and not attempts to spoof or misrepresent the opinions of politicians or political organizations. Similarly for corporate and banking sites as a protection against fraud.

Social media sites will be included in the listings for those that seek them out but will not be included automatically in searches.

The next level of search will be the ability to search not just for information resources/websites but also within them like a normal web search but restricted to sites within the directory, as a whole or by specific subject matter, or specific website.

And finally a full internet search will be available where that is desired. The ability to exclude social media sites (and perhaps certain other categories) will be included. All searches will have full Boolean search capability and resources on how to understand and use the Boolean search capability will be provided.

A final capability, which i am on the fence about whether it should be included, is a natural language question search capability with an algorithm to translate that into boolean search terms.

The big question here becomes how can this be funded. Ideally enough users would be willing to pay for accurate search to make it work, but let’s not delude ourselves about the majority of Internet users. So it would probably require some major donors willing to fund it because it is good for society, and hopeful broadly distributed, with small individual donations being at least a significant portion of the funding.

2024-05-12

The Scourge of the Internet

No I am not writing about the fear and hate mongering taking over the Internet although they are the greatest evils of the Internet. And I am not taking about corporate social media with all it’s evils of turning the customer into the product, at least it can facilitate communication and community and even activism. I am talking about something much subtler and seemingly innocuous.

The Scourge of the Internet are so-called influencers and content creators.

When I think of influencers, The Kardashians are the first thing that come to mind, people famous for being famous. Influencers online are about being famous, and being charismatic or outrageous seems to be the way to go. But influencers are not really out to influence anyone, they are just looking for followers that can be monetized.

As for content providers, the word content says it. They are not about providing real information or knowledge, it’s just about creating something to stick in-between the advertising. That is why when you go researching online you keep finding multiple websites with exactly the same information, word for word (usually stolen from Wikipedia), Content providers are just sticking content they steal in-between the advertising. Again all for hits and advertising revenue.

These things may seem innocuous but they clutter up the Internet with meaningless pap making finding real information increasing more difficult, if not close to impossible. And AI is just going to make everything worse as the LLMs behind it feed on this mountain of garbage for the ultimate GIGO effect.

Can we have our old Internet back please – a place for information, communication and community.

2023-07-24

The stages of corporate social media

Corporate social media essentially goes through three stages.

The first is new, free and wonderful, lots of functionality, user friendly and free, or at least pretending to be free. It’s purpose is to build a customer/product base (as the customer is the product).

The second stage is monetization. The purpose is to make money so once the free loss leader period is over measures to create revenue are introduced. These are usually things the users can live with and are introduced along with measures to make the customer dependent on the product.

Once that is achieved we move into stage three, equivalent to the final stage of capitalism. We move from earning a fair profit to profit maximization with no regard for the user, the assumption being that by this time the user is convinced their very existence is dependent on the product, also known as the Facebook effect.

With the introduction of Brand X, EvilElon is clearly telling us he is moving Twitter into Stage Three as capitalism moves into it’s final stage.

2023-07-10

Should We Bring Back The Lord’s Day Act

No I am not going all religious on you This would be more of a Day for Humanity, a day that would not belong to the billionaires and millionaires but to the common people and the community.

This would be a day where all profit making activities would be banned except for activities necessary for essential public utilities and community and social services. Large scale profit making entertainment (including sports) would be banned except for local community based activities.

Perhaps most importantly all social media would shut down for the day and being constantly plugged into devices would be prohibited. Disable texting too and make people actually talk to each other

This would be a day for families of all kinds and the community to come together as people, not just as customers (or contacts), a day when our interactions with each other would not be transactional, a day that would proudly not contribute to the so called economy or the GDP or GNP.

A Day for Humanity, once a week.

2023-03-05

Why Mastodon

So why did I open a Mastodon account and why do I think Mastodon can replace Twitter.

I started looking for alternatives to Twitter soon after Elon Musk purchased it and sent it to hell in a hand basket.

Of course, Twitter’s problems started much earlier than that. As soon as Twitter realized that as a business it had to monetize it’s product an emphasis on profitability took over and it ceased to be a primarily community space. At that point many of us wished there was some sort of co-operative community based alternative. Many of us did not realize that one did exist, in the form of Mastodon, until we started looking harder after Elon Musk purchased Twitter as his personal vanity project.

Of course the purchase of Twitter by the world’s richest person could have been a positive thing, The new owner could afford to subsidize it as a project for the common good. But instead he decided to use if for self promotion and to pursue his own perverted concept of free speech, turning it into a haven for disinformation, conspiracy theories, the spewing of hatred and a platform for right wing extremists and white supremacists.

This has forced many from minority and vulnerable communities to leave the hatred for their own self-preservation. Those of us more privileged were able to use our ability to filter what we see to protect ourselves. The reason we remain is that so far no alternative has the audience reach that Twitter does. But many of us are looking at Mastodon as that potential alternative and replacement for Twitter.

Can Twitter be saved. Perhaps, but it’s business model means profit will always be put before community. Could an angel investor with deep pockets subsidize it for the common good. Perhaps, but there are very few people in that position and that would leave the Twitter community beholden to that person.

Can Mastodon realistically replace Twitter. The beauty of Mastodon is in it’s co-operative federated structure and volunteer moderation teams. What Mastodon would need to replace Twitter is a huge increase in server and bandwidth capacity. But it does not need a single angel investor. It could do that with thousands of individuals, organizations, and even corporations willing to provide for the cost of the server and bandwidth capacity necessary, in exchange for the goodwill that would create. As to the increase in moderation capacity needed, the strength of Mastodon is that it is scale-able, as it’s user base increases so does its potential volunteer base. So, yes, I do believe Mastodon can eventually replace Twitter.

The other benefit of Mastodon is that it will not attract the hateful elements that Twitter does. For example, these are the rules for the server I am on.

Some ground rules. These are set and enforced by the mstdn.ca moderators.

  1.  No toxic and hateful speech.
  2.  No incitement of violence and no promotion of misleading or violent ideologies.
  3.  No harassment, dogpiling, or unwanted advances.
  4.  No doxxing of other users.
  5.  No content illegal in Canada or copyrighted content that you don't own rights to.
  6.  Sexually explicit or violent media must be marked appropriately.
  7.  No spamming. Excessive posting, boosting, advertising or mass-marketing posts will be   actioned accordingly and based on intent.
  8. Be yourself. Accounts intended to impersonate or parody are not permitted, and those found to be directly misrepresenting themselves as another person or entity will be actioned accordingly.
  9. Agree to the Terms of Service and Code of Conduct.

Put more briefly, this simply requires that users not be assholes and that they act like decent human beings while using Mastodon. However, this will keep the “anti-woke/anti-PC” crowd away as they see human decency as an affront to their right to free speech and would not want to be associated with such a “woke” service and will likely prefer “TruthSocial” anyway.

For now I will remain on Twitter, taking advantage of the greater reach it currently provides. As for Mastodon, I will likely be easing myself into participation there as I figure things out.

My Mastodon user name is @the5thColumnist@mstdn.ca and my Mastodon main page is located at https://mstdn.ca/@the5thColumnist

You can learn more about Mastodon here https://joinmastodon.org/

To join mstdn.ca go here Sign up - Mastodon Canada (mstdn.ca)

2022-09-28

A Tale of Two Twitters

It is the best of the Internet, it is the worst of the Internet, it is the purveyor of wisdom, it is the purveyor of disinformation, it is the home of knowledge, it is the home of wilful ignorance.

Beyond the literary allusion (words inspired by Charles Dickens) there do indeed seem to be two Twitters. 

One can be a place of enlightenment where people share information, opinions and even wisdom and rationally debate the issues of the day.

The other can be a place where people spout conspiracy theories, lies, hate, and even threats, without any personal accountability under the cloak of anonymity.

What is the solution. Some would have us eliminate the second Twitter in the name of civility. Others would argue that Twitter should be a place of absolute free speech without any required personal responsibility.

I would suggest a solution that allows the users to choose which Twitter they want to be part of with a few simple changes that otherwise allows Twitter to continue as it is.

The first thing is to open up Verified Accounts to anyone who wishes to be verified rather than allowing verification only for VIPs and so-called influencers. The second would be to then allow Verified Users, if they wish, to restrict who can see their Tweets and whose Tweets they can see to Verified Users only.

Let people choose the Twitter they want to be part of.