Slashdot Mirror
Nick Denton Predicts 'The Good Internet' Will Rise Again (pcworld.com)
Gawker founder Nick Denton argued today that the future will be rooted in sites like Reddit which involve their reader community -- even if there's only a handful of subtopics each user is interested in. "There's a vitality to it and there's a model for what [media] could be," he told an audience at the South by Southwest festival.
But when it comes to other social media sites, "Facebook makes me despise many of my friends and Twitter makes me hate the rest of the world," Denton said. And he attempted to address America's politically-charged atmosphere where professional news organizations struggled to pay their bills while still producing quality journalism. An anonymous reader quotes PCWorld: The internet played a huge role in this crisis, but despite it all, Denton thinks the web can be the solution to the problems it created. "On Google Hangouts chats or iMessage you can exchange quotes, links, stories, media," he said. "That's a delightful, engaging media experience. The next phase of media is going to come out of the idea of authentic, chill conversation about things that matter. Even if we're full of despair over what the internet has become, it's good to remind yourself when you're falling down some Wikipedia hole or having a great conversation with somebody online -- it's an amazing thing. In the habits that we enjoy, there are the seeds for the future. That's where the good internet will rise up again."
To show his support for news institutions, Denton has also purchased a paid subscription to the New York Times' site.
But when it comes to other social media sites, "Facebook makes me despise many of my friends and Twitter makes me hate the rest of the world," Denton said. And he attempted to address America's politically-charged atmosphere where professional news organizations struggled to pay their bills while still producing quality journalism. An anonymous reader quotes PCWorld: The internet played a huge role in this crisis, but despite it all, Denton thinks the web can be the solution to the problems it created. "On Google Hangouts chats or iMessage you can exchange quotes, links, stories, media," he said. "That's a delightful, engaging media experience. The next phase of media is going to come out of the idea of authentic, chill conversation about things that matter. Even if we're full of despair over what the internet has become, it's good to remind yourself when you're falling down some Wikipedia hole or having a great conversation with somebody online -- it's an amazing thing. In the habits that we enjoy, there are the seeds for the future. That's where the good internet will rise up again."
To show his support for news institutions, Denton has also purchased a paid subscription to the New York Times' site.
This idiot is one of the people that has made the internet so unpleasant.
Really? Reddit, the epitome of censorship and groupthink circlejerks? Only slashdot compares to that cesspit.
And yeah, Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat all suck balls too.
The problem comes directly from the "pay the bills" mentality
"Pay the bills" means clicks on advertizing, which translates to grabbing eyeballs and attention using any means possible.
"Any means" has descended into outrageous and unsupportable claims intended to promote outrage or interest in the reader. Anything and everything that can make the reader outraged is fair came in the advertizing war.
It's become so obvious that there are specific memes and word phrases which are now *avoided* because of their fake usage. "...using this one weird trick", "top ten some-trivia-thing", "such-and-so you need to know", and so on.
Newspapers have always slanted the truth towards outrage and reader engagement a little, but with the feeding frenzy of internet it's now become a completely unhinged cage fight for reader attention.
Complete and total lies are now allowed, rumor and innuendo can be published without vetting for accuracy, reversal of meaning and impact is commonplace.
Many MSM articles simply report tweets that people make; and no, I'm not referring to Trump either. Some random headlines:
Many in this county are poor and sick, and they voted for Trump. What will happen to their health care?
It's way too soon to panic about Fed rate hikes
Rep. Steve King warns that 'our civilization' can't be restored with 'somebody else's babies'
Is any of this news? Which of these tells us what is happening?
Nothing about the MSM is authentic any more, and neither is twitter or facebook. Journalistic integrity and important freedoms (speech, assembly, and press) have been swept aside in the race for readership, political correctness, and promotion of one partisan side.
It's no wonder people are flocking to other sites.
Current events are far less controversial than the internet makes them out to be.
This idiot is one of the people that has made the internet so unpleasant.
One of the perennial problems with on Slashdot is that arguments can simply attack the person making them.
The greeks noted that arguments are made from "logos", "ethos", and "pathos". "Logos" is the logical basis of your argument, "Pathos" is the emotional appeal of your argument, and "Ethos" is the character of the person making the argument.
Thus, here on slashdot we can't discuss constitutional abuse of Kim Dotcom because he's an asshole, we can't discuss wikileaks because Assange is an attention whore, and we can't discuss CIA snooping because Snowden is a traitor.
It's so easy to dismiss an argument out of hand just by pointing out that the person making an argument is somehow inferior.
Nick Denton is such a completely rotten individual that this is not a valid issue that nerds should discuss or post views and opinions about.
This, the man behind the abomination that was Gawker, does not understand what's really detracting from the value of the internet. It's an overload of people (like him) looking to cash in on users that has resulted in the worst elements of the internet. Honestly, who thinks pages that pull elements from 25+ different domains are going to end up being anything but garbage looking to exploit it's users?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
sites like Reddit which involve their reader community
The future isn't with narrative-controlled places like Reddit.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
>That said, isn't Reddit about 10x more popular (or more!) than Slashdot??
Probably. But while Slashdot is not without its faults, Reddit's designed with them intentionally.
Community moderation by self-elected individuals (with professionals only stepping in if it looks like it could affect Reddit legally, and then only with the corporation's best interests in mind as is to be expected) means Reddit is fractured into thousands of toxic echo chambers, and discussion consists of chasing 'karma'. That in turn results in people posting 'easy karma' meme posts, agreeing mindlessly with groupthink, and no way to filter genuine discussion-driving dissent from trolling.
But it 'works' because it's ego-driven and people eat that shit up even as it makes them miserable.
means Reddit is fractured into thousands of toxic echo chambers
But that is the endpoint of any internet forum, when you break down anything into a small enough space the ecosystem is not toxic to the inhabitants therein.
Just what do you think the toxic people would be doing if not readng/posting to Reddit? The answer cannot be good. There needs to be basically a cultural heat-sync to absorb truly aberrant opinion before it reaches physical manifestation.
But it 'works' because it's ego-driven and people eat that shit up even as it makes them miserable.
Seems fine to me, even though that's why I don't read Reddit (much). Whatever makes people happy - including things that make them sad....
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I never said it wasn't moderated. Usenet and the other early systems were only 'cesspools' to thin skinned idiots with bad arguments.
I don't see that as a problem.
I bet you would if the banned topics included your viewpoints. Therein lies the hypocrisy of modern social justice. You would not be defending that advertiser excuse either. You'd attack it as evidence of 'systemic bigotry.'
The people upset about this generally just want to bypass the obscurity phase and broadcast their messages to a wide audience that doesn't want to listen.
Like MLK? The suffragettes? Had they existed during the internet era, should they have been censored for speaking their minds to that 'wide audience that doesn't want to listen'? Should they have been sued or jailed? I think you need to reevaluate your politics.