I hate to keep repeating this but if I can run local LLMs or AI models in Linux why do I need Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta products?
Google search, social, even shopping become obsolete. If there's an AGI equivalent model that can help me get through my day, maybe even build, cook and everything else DIY humans need.
For those lamenting the writing style: I agree that this article could use some editing, but in the same way the author laments the passing of the Unique Web, I too am saddened that an off-beat tech rant like this is hard to find these days in a sea of SEO-optimized or AI-generated content.
I don't necessarily agree with the author's conclusions, but I absolutely loved the writing style here:
Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta (GAMM) now own most of the steel and glass that makes the internet go vroom. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft control seventy-five percent of the cloud computing market. Meta and Google own half of the fiber optic cables supplying internet services across continents. Most of our favorite productivity apps, retail websites, and social media platforms are beholden to proprietary infrastructure controlled by these four corporations. They own the most heavily trafficked server networks, all the GPUs, and gigawatts, and whatever.
They call it the cloud, but really, that’s just the internet.
So, what we know as the cloud doesn’t actually exist. It’s a euphemism that obfuscates the consolidation of critical infrastructure. The cloud is metaphysical porn for wild-eyed technocrats in Allbirds who say things like “I’m making a dent in the universe” without a whisper of irony. It’s bullshit. It’s fugazi. There is no spoon, Neo. The cloud is a lie.
If you have ever used a sufficiently smart autocomplete, then you work is “partially AI generated content”. There is a difference between using it to write and just letting it write.
> I'm 14 And This Is Deep is a common satirical slang used to address images and comics which are presented as deep and thoughtful, but which instead are criticized for being shallow and immature.
Finally a good rant with lots of swear words, sarcasm and telling things as the author sees them, without thinking if any of that may hurt some companies feelings. There should be more articles like that.
>if we want a true indie web, we must be prepared to fight for it. Hope is not enough.
This argument would be far more convincing if I saw some gifs of dancing bananas, rainbow colored text, a main text column that spanned the entire screen width, a repeated background image right under the text, a music playing widget that autoplayed music, and it changed my cursor to a pencil or something.
Right now, I'm looking at a medium post that's not on medium. This is what I see.
Is it really your personal website if it doesn't contain your mixtape?
The is dead in much the same the Aztecs were dead immediately prior to the arrival of the Spanish. Consolidation into proprietary closed gardens corrupted it like a cancer and mass content population via AI will kill it. It’s time for a competing format. Any will do, but we could do something superior.
A superior format would look like:
* Full duplex binary sockets for transmission versus HTTP or WebSockets. It shouldn’t require proprietary software to perform a video call in a browser when modern browsers fully support that capability. The web could be fast and simple but it certainly isn’t.
* Markdown instead of HTML. Accessible semantic HTML is just too challenging for most people.
* Most developers are too stupid and fearful to make direct use of the DOM. Embracing the DOM must be mandatory with 100% dedication without alternatives or abstractions in future software or it must be abandoned in the entirety. Provided the opportunity to get this wrong most developers will find a self-serving way to fuck this up nine times out of ten, so don’t cave to weakness on this.
* No matter what the solution is it should enshrine a forced dichotomy of anonymity or privacy. It must be a choice and that choice must be clear and mandatory. If you try for both you will have neither and developers will cry about how hard life is, like with the DOM. Don’t give the whiners an excuse to whine.
Isn't that the beauty of magic, and of much technology...that to the end viewer it just works? How does a magician get the oohs and ahhs by revealing their secrets? Much of the world spending time on the web actually doesn't care that things aren't open, or that the magic show is just an act of misdirection...the consumer is happy to scroll, get a dopamine hit, and repeat 1000 times a night.
Sorry but this idea that the old internet is dead is just people hand wringing that nobody will read their boring blog. It's the mistake that people make about democracy. Most assume that democracy is about the right to be heard. Wrong. It's the right to be peacefully ignored. Nobody, not even GAMM ( did he make that up ) is stopping me spinning up a web server on my cheap 50MBit up/down connection, writing a blog and doing whatever. If nobody comes to read it and nobody is kicking down my door to punish me for writing it then the system is working about as best it can. That others choose to consume their content elsewhere is just a sign that I am not as interesting as I think I am. But that is most of us.
> Nobody, not even GAMM ( did he make that up ) is stopping me spinning up a web server on my cheap 50MBit up/down connection
But you can't really do that as a private person (i.e.: if you're not a business), right? For start, many residential ISP contracts don't allow you to serve your own content to the public and will suspend your account if they catch you doing that. Secondarily, you can't get a residential connection with a fixed IP - you will need Dynamic DNS, probably provided by a third-party basing their whole infra on "the cloud".
If I could do all these things in a reasonably easy way as a non-business entity and then nobody came read my blog I would be super-happy.
> But you can't really do that as a private person (i.e.: if you're not a business), right?
It doesn't take much to be a business though, depending on your jurisdiction.
In washington state, it took me like 15 minutes and $55 to register a business earlier this year, which I did so I could register for a business internet account that I ended up not doing (T-Mobile 5G small business internet can give you a static IP for $3/month, but only if you setup your account with an EIN, but I had some big issues with connecting the equipment to my LAN on the 'sole proprietor' account, and then major service issues returning everything, so I'm kind of done with them for a while)
> that I ended up not doing (T-Mobile 5G small business internet can give you a static IP for $3/month, but only if you setup your account with an EIN, but I had some big issues with connecting the equipment to my LAN on the 'sole proprietor' account, and then major service issues returning everything, so I'm kind of done with them for a while)
I guess this proves my (and OP's) point: you tried to self-publish on the Internet without using the "cloud" and to do that you needed to jump a lot of hoops and, in the end, you didn't even succeed.
Dynamic DNS is just updating a record when your IP changes, the only external service it requires is the API for your DNS provider.
A friend just ordered static IP on her residential connection, it can be an option.
If you really needed to there's nothing stopping a private person ordering "business" internet. I don't think that'd change their ToS on hosting websites, but if it's light traffic do you really think they're going to notice and take issue with it?
> if it's light traffic do you really think they're going to notice and take issue with it?
Right, but this means that you can do anything you want as long as it's inconsequential; it's when it starts to matter that it becomes very difficult without relying on the cloud.
Yes. Exactly. If you become popular and your content/service goes nuclear then nobody is stopping you hiring an IT team and building out a server farm in your basement. All the equipment is available for purchase at a price way under what it was during this imaginary golden age of internet. But you need to be educated to use it and have time to build it and money to keep the lights on. Yes all these things you can do. However this is not a human right to have and why should anybody provide it to you for free and maintain it for you for free? That is the "cloud" you are complaining about. If you want to do it solo and have the time and money and knowledge to handle the tech stack then you can. Go for it.
In the before times you needed to either know a webmaster with a reasonably popular web ring, or find and join a reasonably popular community forum around your interests and perform whatever archaic rituals they require to get permission to post links. Usually either of those options was wrapped up in a layer of nepotism (maybe that word is too strong?) and the upper limit to the traffic an average person could get from those activities was at most, three digits.
Then we got site generators from companies like yahoo that automatically added you to a directory and that was neat for a bit, until directories became flooded with everybody’s demo of HTML’s marquee tag. Notably, find-ability did not change.
Now we have companies like google that specialize in matching queries with responses. As would be expected in a profit-focused system, those responses can be influenced by the people trying to be found.
I wouldn’t argue that the current system of “pay somebody some money to be found” is better or more fair (fair at all?) but it’s provided a new avenue that at least on the surface feels easier. But either way, if someone is still chasing their two or three digits of readership, the webring/forum post model is still alive and well. That’s basically what sharing this article on HN (or Reddit/Facebook/Twitter) is, no?
I think this article is entertaining and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The key takeaway for me was that some companies who's business models revolved around infrastructure and scale (web search, social media,...) went vertical and acquired most of the world's web infra and core services. This provides them with scale advantage and they try to push products that rely on that advantage, while making cost of entry prohibitive to any potential competitors. Chasing the dream of selling "50-dollar solutions to 50-cent questions". No conspiracy in sight. Just capitalism :)
> The reason why GAMM and all its little digirati minions on social media are pushing things like crypto, then the blockchain, and now virtual reality and artificial intelligence is because those technologies require a metric fuckton of computing power to operate.
Except what about the open source that google, amazon, microsoft etc sponsor? Is that bad or good? What about companies who build open source software? Are they good to start with and then become bad at some tipping point of market penetration? Are Meta sponsoring pytorch because they do a lot of machine learning in python or is it because they want to sell you on the cloud services (that they don't actually sell people)?
The whole thing feels like when you sit down at a bar and the guy next to you decides to start up a conversation about their pet topic and just will not fucking shut up no matter what. Full of pat "solutions", "deep" thoughts, dumb made-up terminology ("GAMM") that he clearly feels ever so proud of, deliberate changes to the meanings of words (eg "cloud"[1]).
His claim that "minions" of google, amazon, microsoft and meta are behind the whole crypto thing is one of the single stupidest and most obviously wrong claims I've ever heard anyone make. It's right up there with the face on mars, moon landing conspiracy, "turnip-shaped" earth[2] and all this other type of stuff that is so obviously wrong on its face it's hard to know where to begin.
Really appalling that this sort of nonsense is getting any airtime.
[1] Which really doesn't mean whatever he's saying it means in this article. The fact that Meta or Google own some undersea cables doesn't mean in any sense that they own "the cloud". Cloud means infrastructure as a service. Google offer cloud services. They actually brand them as such. Meta do not offer cloud services. THey run honking big old-school datacentres which they use for their own purposes. They need a lot of TCP/IP so it makes sense for them to pay to put in place the infra to reach their customers.
Agreed — this reads less like a serious opinion piece and more like an unhinged rant, trying to find a conspiracy where there is likely just good old fashioned opportunism.
Google search, social, even shopping become obsolete. If there's an AGI equivalent model that can help me get through my day, maybe even build, cook and everything else DIY humans need.