This is how it was on the 90s internet. Sites got hugged to death on the regular. It's how we ended up with the platforms, really, cause they had the capital to handle these surges without losing the company's house.
Edit: and there was no Patreon or any popular platform to quickly save the site.
I skimmed the article. It’s reasonable, but can someone please tell how it explains the “had to die” part of the title or is that just clickbait?
Also to add to what another poster said: after Eternal September (if there was ever a milestone for this) most people on the internet become just regular users. Therefore the internet’s offerings evolved to cater to this majority. That’s ok (I guess). In my opinion the biggest issue is centralization. Ex: want to have a video channel about guns or hacking? Best pound sand because you don’t have a spot on the biggest video platform that currently exists.
The rot had set in long before they were giving away free content on the web. Before then people were paying for the distribution and not the content, the web destroyed the ability to profit off the distribution.
I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say: "the open web is dead". Its reach is dead.
Previously, the "open web" was all there was, before the online walled gardens. Users were trained to get information that way. Now that traffic's been captured by the walled gardens that optimize for engagement. There's a reason Google Reader died, Google stated it: "declining use and relevance".
Going viral is essential to growing an audience. TikTok, YouTube, and Twitter offer that. The open web doesn't.
a) Websites change hands frequently and enshittify rapidly.
b) Nobody was getting paid to check in on websites and make sure they were still on-topic
c) Most 'good' websites don't update every day, and people hate RSS and email signups. So activity and engagement on those sites are completely overshadowed by the bottomless pit of content that is social media.
TV shows were always centrally distributed.
reply