MikeGale

The original concept looks good but it, seemingly, didn't last.

The business model of, "owned by somebody who can sell it", may be at the root.

The possibilities that existed then, exist now, if people want to make the effort to control their own lives.

I've found myself trying to avoid email, for the enshittification that I've not been able to avoid.

This will make it worse.

Solutions? At least some could involve key exchange. How about a bounty of some sort on spammers?

The program is gold. It enables you to speedily and almost effortlessly build up code, in a way that I haven't seen elsewhere.

If there's an option to using alternatives to those you don't trust, like Google or Apple, that's good. If not you need to find an alternative service.

You need the choice.

Facebook does this already. Not only posts and comments but also messages between two people.

The system is used to hide content, change content, shadow ban and the like.

Even by its own standards it's typically used incorrectly, but most users have no workable way to appeal.

The content reviewed is often visible to low paid workers in various countries. Similar systems have been infiltrated by hostile governments. (Twitter is a case in point.)

(If you use FB you can sometimes probe the system and better establish the details.)

The system is also used to prevent one user informing another that they've been squelched.

My guess, this would give rise to even less competent implementations and actual elimination of political opponents and the like.

I'm unconvinced that this was dealing with humans. To me it looks like automated systems that synthesise human style interactions. The code isn't ready for release but they did anyway.

A person can't be that stupid, can they?

On this issue I suggest figuring it out for yourself. Look into the technology a bit and decide.

This issue illustrates that public pronouncements and published material can be misinformation and opposite to the obvious truth. Great ways to identify liars for yourself.

I'm not using DDG but I have checked how many sites use Google facilities which track. A lot more than 0.3.

1. Many of the creators of web sites and many of the users have changed. The creators often know diddly squat except some framework, they often work for a dullard and produce dull nonsense. The audience is often deeply "consumer" in the derogatory meaning of the word.

Result: When you're surfing you see so much of no interest that it's no longer fun.

(There is good stuff out there it's just so hard to find.)

2. The search engines also actively destroyed all those people who used to list interesting sites. Now the replacement for finding interesting sites is often some half witted algorithm, that's definitely not human, definitely hasn't the slightest clue and won't even let you take charge to get what you want.

3. People used to write their own material, experiment with program driven sites, be interesting. Now so many, even those who used to be interesting, make regurgi-posts all the time. They provide a link to an article that they've often not really read. That article is produced by somebody under time pressure who thinks the web is some text and a stock image or two, but mostly 100 times as much code as anything useful, so they can watch your every move, extract your money.

That's enough for now. If you want you can recreate the web as something that increases your intellect, not this destroyer abomination thing, choice is yours. If you have say five or so friends similarly inclined you can do it. Your choice.

Roger made a major contribution, in a quiet way.

Thoughts are with all those who miss him.

How do we even know, from that article, that this is a computer generated being?

A defeatist piece. If you're determined and have initiative you can achieve a lot. If you depend on the legislators in society, like this author, you may indeed be doomed. But you don't need to be.

The good thing is that with defensive measures you can stop much of it. With retroveillance you may even be able to strike back from time to time.

This needs to be opt in. Both from a web site and from a user.

I see something which may be referred to here.

I'm acquainted with people on social media who find that what they write on Facebook (say) is banned by the algorithmic being that reads before you post. Sometimes posts disappear. Sometimes they get sent to the naughty corner for 7 days.

The reason for a ban is sometimes a real head scratcher, as far as I can tell, but not always.

They've tried other places to have conversations. Some of those have also been torn down.

Some have gone away. I generally don't know where to, but some are setting up their own discussion spaces. (I've recommended that to those who've asked.)

Maybe a return to a former age where you controlled your own discussion spaces. A braai/BBQ in the back yard, a table in the corner of the pub, a ten day tramp through the mountains with four friends.