Slashdot Mirror


How the Internet Became a Closed Shop

AcidAUS sends this quote from the Sydney Morning Herald: "A little over a decade ago, just before the masses discovered the digital universe, the internet was a borderless new frontier: a terra nullius to be populated by individuals, groups and programmers as they saw fit. There were few rules and no boundaries. Freedom and open standards, sharing information for the greater good was the ethos. Today, the open internet we once knew is fracturing into a series of gated communities or fiefdoms controlled by giants like Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon and to a lesser extent Microsoft. A billion-dollar battle conducted in walled cities where companies try to lock our consumption into their vision of the internet. It has left some lamenting the 'web we lost.'"

22 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Related Anil Dash Blogs and earlier /. discussion by xmas2003 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Sydney Morning Herald article may have been sparked by Anil Dash's recent Blog Post - The Web We Lost ... which was discussed on /. last week.

    Anil also wrote a followup titled "Rebuilding the Web We Lost" that may be worth reading.

    Speaking of the "lost web", we no longer see as many offbeat websites like this one ... HO-HO-HO! ;-)

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  2. The web we lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I miss you Geocities!

    1. Re:The web we lost by deimtee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You may laugh about the crappy eye-hurting design, but when we lost geocities and similar amateur websites we lost a lot of information that isn't on the web anywhere else.
      Manufactures and tech websites can give you the specs on things, but Joe Blow in his garage pulling apart a blender and posting the pics would (accidently sometimes) show how to open it without breaking the internal clips.
      There was a lot of information on damn near anything if you knew how to search for it. Now everything is a bland advertisement or a repost of the same list of data over and over. SEO just about finished it off.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
  3. LOL by Desler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Freedom and open standards, sharing information for the greater good was the ethos.

    No it wasn't. This is someone inventing a nostalgic version of the Internet that didn't exist. Prior to Facebook, etc. there was AOL and Compuserve which had their own "walled gardens" and gated versions of the Internet. Throughout the 90s it was a fight of both Netscape and Microsoft pushing proprietary HTML elements and the "Best viewed in Netscape" or "Best viewed in IE" nonsense.

    1. Re: LOL by eladts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everything was better in the past, especially the nostalgia.

    2. Re:LOL by Punto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah but the thing is that back then, the users of AOL and Compuserve didn't really matter, they didn't drive any money or opinion or attention from anyone, nobody cared about them. Nowadays, whatever a million idiots do on Facebook or Twittwer decides how millions of dollars are spent by companies and other idiot investors. It's super annoying.

      --

      --
      Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  4. Yeah, that's the way it always is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Computer hobbyists in the '80s complained that IBM and Microsoft had taken over "their" world. Car enthusiasts in the '20s probably complained about Ford and GM. When an industry becomes mature there are relatively few market leaders, practically by definition, and those leaders generally don't innovate more than they have to. Why? Network effects is one reason. Economies of scale is another. There's the good ol' monopolistic practices of the robber barons. And a couple gentlemen on Mad. Avenue explained another reason: our brains only have room for two or three entrants for most market categories that we don't happen to be fanatical or professionally involved with.

    As Scott McNealy would have said, "Get over it."

  5. yeah yeah by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Times change. You can never go home. Things were always better in the past. I can remember when all of this was farmland. Now get off my lawn.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:yeah yeah by PRMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ecclesiastes 7:10 Don’t long for “the good old days.” This is not wise.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  6. I was there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I lived through the open web, even before that, in the days of dial-up BBS services. And you know what? It sucked compared to the web we have today. Aside from speed issues, which our irrelevant in this conversation, the quality, variety, and value of available content was crap compared today. These walled gardens have motivated and allowed all sorts of great content, inventions, and application.

    Furthermore, the open web hasn't gone away. Its still there and there are several other 'communities' that are essentially open webs unto themselves. We just don't think about them or use them much (for some) because there are better things to do online (e.g. cat photos and stumbleupon).

    Drop the nostalgic nonsense.

  7. Woohoo 2nd reference to medieval rule in a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe they should change the site to
    slashandparrydot
    ye Olde Slashdoth
    Walled Home and Garden
    Internostalgia
    Get Thee Oft My Lawn

    Its been almost 12 hours since the latest Windows 8 sucks submission.

    Captcha: Terrors

  8. Bollocks by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, can we just stop paying attention to traditional media until it all dies? I don't think I've read an article in the last year that wasn't trying to provoke outrage, fear or hatred through selective reporting, manipulation of data, and gross simplification.

    Today, the open internet we once knew is fracturing into a series of gated communities or fiefdoms controlled by giants like Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon and to a lesser extent Microsoft.

    What, so now it's impossible to start your own website? To run your own services? That's news to me. Just because there are now large, popular sites doesn't mean small, unpopular sites are now non-existent. The internet that we had 30 years ago is still there, it's just nobody uses it. But it's not like, say, the presence of Facebook means IIRC has suddenly been uninvented.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  9. Yep by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For all the whining, the Internet is really more open these days than ever. If nothing else, there's a lot more world-wide participation. For a good part of the Internet's history, it was nearly all in the US with only token amounts outside. Now it really is a world-wide network.

    Also some of the companies mentioned really aren't doing much in the way of any sort of lock-in. Yes Amazon has about 1% of the Internet in its data centers, which is pretty impressive, but it is just hosting. You buy the virtual servers to do as you please (within the ToS of course). You can even compete with Amazon using Amazon. Netflix hosts a lot of their videos on Amazon EC2.

    The Internet may not be the anarchist-geek dreamworld, but it is more open than anything else I can think of in human history, and more open than it was in the past.

    1. Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the same argument as the FSF's indictment of software as a service. And frankly, they're right.

      Software delivered "as a service" is much, much more closed than even closed source software. Closed source software can be pirated, reverse engineered, decompiled, run on machines sufficiently isolated that they can't call home, ... you have none of those options with software as a service. You cannot prevent those companies spying on you by any means at all.

      So yes, the facebook/dropbox/office 360/google world is worse than the closed-source microsoft monopoly.

  10. BULLSHIT -- it's not closed at all by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only thing that's changed is that hot internet startups tend to get bought up pretty quickly and rolled into whichever walled garden their new Mega-Sized Overlord happens to own.

    If it were a walled grden, you'd have to "pay to play" just to have the opportunity to launch your online startup -- e.g: the iTunes App Store.
    Today we see Instagram making a Billion off a couple weeks of effort for an app that would have netted hardly enough to pay the developers rent back in 2000.

    Times are actually pretty good and in fact easier for small startups to realize a handsome profit.

  11. Re:Related Anil Dash Blogs and earlier /. discussi by QRDeNameland · · Score: 5, Funny

    Speaking of the "lost web", we no longer see as many offbeat websites like this one ... HO-HO-HO! ;-)

    My eyes...ze goggles, zey do nothing!!!!

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  12. It's all still there by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "web we lost" is all still there, more or less, in that nothing about the underlying technology of the web has changed. But no-one is interested in the old ways of doing things, and 'modern' services like Facebook are what people obviously want. In other words, like government, we get the web we deserve.

  13. What a maroon... by sirwired · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, there totally isn't any way to do anything on the internet without Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.

    Except for:
    - Discussion forums, which exist for pretty much every single interest group imaginable
    - Places to post images
    - A whole spectrum of places to buy stuff, most of which AREN'T Amazon
    - Millions of blogs about every conceivable topic and viewpoint
    - Websites by companies providing information about what they sell
    - A way to interact with the government
    - Online banking
    - Research
    - A whole lot of stuff neither I, nor anybody else, has even thought up yet

    And you can do all of those things without touching a single service or product sold by one of the big giants.

    In conclusion... what on earth is he talking about?

  14. Re:Related Anil Dash Blogs and earlier /. discussi by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Speaking of the "lost web", we no longer see as many offbeat websites

    I dunno, we haven't lost Zombo.Com, there's even a HTML5 Zombo.com

    Goatsects is still around in various forms. What's primarily happened is that hosting your persona stuff has been subsidized by advertising and data aggregation instead of being a bit more private (if you use a proxy registrar contact) and hosting your own servers. That's still possible, but there's less demand for it now.

    I think it's a shame really, because we do need our own publicly/privately accessible servers to stream "our" stuff (music, video, pics, ramblings, etc) to us. With the rise of consumption centric devices I think we might see a rise in both online hosting services for more of your stuff at the cost of more privacy (social graph sites), and home-server and paid hosting solutions for the more privacy conscious. It's kind of silly that Facebook, G+, etc. don't have an API for adding a remote friend -- Where the social site would scrape my private server that implements a public API (RSS anyone?) so that users of their services can get updates from folks outside the service. You can sort of cobble together something with G+ & Google Reader, but it's not nearly as integrated with the social stuff, and RSS has no "bueno" button.

    "The web we lost" Bah, Humbug. What about the Internet we lost? Everything's caught up in the "web", which would be fine if it wasn't an overly complicated inefficient document rendering markup and stateless protocol, that people try to cobble into stateful online applications with a horribly inefficient scripting langauge... It's so bad that we're still waiting for HTML5 to be formalized, it's been over 12 years since HTML4.01 -- About half the age of the damn web. If we were serious about this thing, We'd be making a lower level glyph & vector graphics display system with a more efficient general purpose VM language (for great sandboxing justice) as the primary target. Every damn site is an application now, which means a kludge ridden mess. Simple Primitives, then work your way up, HTML + CSS + Active Code could compile down to lower level primitives such that we could innovate in the higher level stuff, or even scrap it while remaining compatible with old sites. Take a page from the CPU architectures. How many coding languages are there? They don't require a new platform each time. Starting off at the markup level and building such a platform there is kind of silly if you ask me. Java tried to save us, but they became too bloated and interested in Enterprise instead of a lean mean client side system -- Sun dropped the ball w/ Applets instead of splitting them out like they did J2ME stuff. Here we are, same damn web, hacking together features we want that it was never designed to support, then crying like babby who can't frigth back when it's more full of exploits than an AOL Punt tool.

  15. The good old days by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... of the internet were wonderful if you were a ham radio operator, scientist, programmer, network engineer, fan of roguelike RPGs or Star Trek.

    Other than that there wasn't a huge amount of content out there.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  16. Re:Related Anil Dash Blogs and earlier /. discussi by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Speaking of the 'lost web'..."

    Except we never lost it. All those "gated communities" and "walled gardens" they talk about require you to opt in!

    If you don't like it, don't opt in.

    Yes, I know, they give you an either / or choice: "Buy an iOS device? Live with our rules." But they have only been able to because people let them. You still have the choice. If you don't like the way they do things, don't participate. Get something else.

  17. Re:Related Anil Dash Blogs and earlier /. discussi by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Try finding a job these days without having a FB account past the level of flipping burgers."

    I have, and I do. In fact, if a prospective client of mine insisted that I participate in FB at all, I'd tell them "No, thanks" and go elsewhere.

    "Employers require people to play the social media game."

    Then -- and I'm not being snide or sarcastic here -- you are talking to the wrong employers. Seriously.

    I don't have a Myspace account. I have have had a Facebook account for years, but I used it maybe twice, then never touched it again. And I have no desire to. Same with Google+.

    I do have a Twitter account, and use it to chat with friends and associates. I also do IM, and Skype, and some other things. But Facebook? No.

    If Facebook and Google+ ever change their tunes, and start being honest and non-intrusive, I might consider them. But not until.

    I should add: I had one client who went out of his way to find me on Twitter and follow me. I blocked him. Then Twitter changed their service to show when you have been blocked. So I unblocked him. But I periodically block him (which forces his account to un-follow me) then immediately remove the block. It serves the same purpose. I just have to remember to do it once in a while.

    Twitter is a social space for me. It isn't for bosses or clients to be checking up on me. And if I had no way to prevent them, I simply would not work for them.

    And if your employer asks you for passwords, you are DEFINITELY talking to the wrong people. I'd get up and walk out right then. And tell them them why. By the way: it is illegal for them to do that now, in some states.