Wild West Era of the Internet over?

Remove this Banner Ad

Now that is pretty much all the news does

Drives me ******* crazy to click on a "news" article and it is one small paragraph of what happened and pages of quotes from randoms on Twitter. Even worse is they have the Twitter link and the text of the twat or twit or whatever directly underneath.

Talk about bone-idle "journalism"...
 
Drives me ******* crazy to click on a "news" article and it is one small paragraph of what happened and pages of quotes from randoms on Twitter. Even worse is they have the Twitter link and the text of the twat or twit or whatever directly underneath.

Talk about bone-idle "journalism"...
Majority of the time it's tweets with like twelve retweets too. Irrelevant even on the vapid platform of twitter, but elevated and enshrined in a "news article" as though it's the voice of the people enunciating a consensus. No wonder people feel like we're more divided than ever when the media is scouring for the fringe extremists to represent the popular discourse.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Drives me ******* crazy to click on a "news" article and it is one small paragraph of what happened and pages of quotes from randoms on Twitter. Even worse is they have the Twitter link and the text of the twat or twit or whatever directly underneath.

Talk about bone-idle "journalism"...
This is a fair chunk of news.com.au articles. "Someone did/said something and some people on Twitter didn't like it so here's an article about it". I know when it comes to news sources news.com.au isn't the highest of quality but jeez, you'd think a paid journalist would want their work to be a bit more substantive than simply embedding tweets from internet nobodies.
 
Last edited:
Kind of a random thought and I'm not really in the right state of mind to articulate it well (feeling quite ill, hopefully not corona), but does anyone else feel like the wild west tone of the internet in the 2000's is basically dead and buried, never to return? I remember when I was like 11 going on a guitar forum which had a drug thread with detailed stories about taking smack and hallucinogens which was really fascinating to read through, and all sorts of weird websites and strange people getting their crackpot opinions out there.

Now the internet is rapidly turning into the same sanitized corporate-boardroom designed experience as watching television, and half the content seems to be designed to sell you something and has clearly been through review. Something a random dude came up with getting traction on the internet now seems impossible to me, at least in the ways the net used to do that, and I don't see another technological platform coming into existence which can recreate that spirit of counter-culture on the scale of the internet again.

Good post. For years I posted on the Misc. subforum of bodybuilding.com, starting in early high school and I remember how epic that forum used to be, largely because of the s**t talk, entertaining/funny trolls, and lack of censorship. That place has nowhere near the same activity level these days and that is in part due to the moderation becoming stricter and stricter over time and banning people for things they used to get away with. They ruined all the fun.

The overall premise of your post is correct though; with youtube becoming more popular than free-to-air TV, they've had to make everything on the platform advertiser-friendly (and anything that isn't gets demonetized), so what we're seeing is increasing sanitisation and censoring due to corporate interests. I'm not sure whether you're aware that there's a massive pushback against this, though. With all these censorship-free video-sharing platforms arising like Bitchute, Bittube, Peertube, DTube etc, I think it's only only a matter of time before one of them poses serious competition to YouTube, at which point YouTube will have to adapt or risk becoming what MySpace became when Facebook came out.
 
Cut and paste saves on having to pay for real journos.

It also aids in passing off propaganda & in disseminating your BS, when there isn't a bunch of fact checking independent squirrels to undermine your BS narrative....Though you can always just label it as 'Classified' in order to skip that difficult hurdle....Isn't that right my ASIO, Fed & Murdoche friends.
 
Drives me ******* crazy to click on a "news" article and it is one small paragraph of what happened and pages of quotes from randoms on Twitter. Even worse is they have the Twitter link and the text of the twat or twit or whatever directly underneath.

Talk about bone-idle "journalism"...
It's far easier and cheaper to trawl Twitter for quotes than cultivate sources and go outside and talk to real people.

Big businesses bought up newspapers which were actually making money, then stripped them down to bump the ROI to double digits and boost share price.

Surprise! News isn't a hugely profitable business unless you cut expenses to the bone and pretend the resulting hollow shell is still "news". Some alt-right YouTubers then compare favourably with some formerly respectable newsrooms.

But this is off-topic.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Good post. For years I posted on the Misc. subforum of bodybuilding.com, starting in early high school and I remember how epic that forum used to be, largely because of the sh*t talk, entertaining/funny trolls, and lack of censorship. That place has nowhere near the same activity level these days and that is in part due to the moderation becoming stricter and stricter over time and banning people for things they used to get away with. They ruined all the fun.

The overall premise of your post is correct though; with youtube becoming more popular than free-to-air TV, they've had to make everything on the platform advertiser-friendly (and anything that isn't gets demonetized), so what we're seeing is increasing sanitisation and censoring due to corporate interests. I'm not sure whether you're aware that there's a massive pushback against this, though. With all these censorship-free video-sharing platforms arising like Bitchute, Bittube, Peertube, DTube etc, I think it's only only a matter of time before one of them poses serious competition to YouTube, at which point YouTube will have to adapt or risk becoming what MySpace became when Facebook came out.
Google, Facebook and Apple have reached monopoly positions only dreamed of by Mypsace. I think you are in for a long wait for a 'serious competitor' to emerge to any of them (especially one that wouldn't just sell out to them at the first opportunity to make bank).
 
Would've been 10 when we got the internet in 1997.

"Wild West Era" has probably been over since 2010.

Things like Facebook took away the anonymity or perception of anonymity. Internet used to be separate or parallel to 'real life' and you had to switch on a computer to use it. Today the internet is always in your pocket and nobody would say it isn't real life.

Every corporation and business getting into it has had... mixed results. Google search results are s**t now. There's probably millions of people who check Facebook, Instagram, news.com.au and that's it for their internet recreation. Which is depressing. There was an idea the internet would make people better educated because 'you've got more information at your fingertips than every library in the world'! For people who use it that way it's worked but for many, many people that hasn't panned out at all. They watch cat videos and Ray William Johnson every ******* day of their lives.

I do remember how incredibly homophobic and racist the internet used to be.

2010 Facebook and Google were still new and different maaaaan. Now I don't think anyone would shed a tear if either company died or Silicon Valley fell apart.
 
Last edited:
Also it shouldn't be overlooked that the average/mean age of people on the internet has risen. An 18-year-old in 1999 calling everyone "****" is now a 39-year-old with something to lose if they call people "****". People become more mature or at least do a better job cloaking their immaturity the older they get.
 
Ten years ago homophobia was still an acceptable part of social discourse. You can see why social conservatives still get huffy about it, in the broader scheme of things the gay rights movement has been ruthlessly successful.

Couple posters quit the soccer board in recent days and it's pretty obvious they're pissy their racism gets reported/deleted/ridiculed.
 
Drives me ******* crazy to click on a "news" article and it is one small paragraph of what happened and pages of quotes from randoms on Twitter. Even worse is they have the Twitter link and the text of the twat or twit or whatever directly underneath.

Talk about bone-idle "journalism"...
This is why I couldn't care less 'journalists' are losing their jobs in droves. deservedly so, you did this to yourselves pumping out shite for months/years and now no one reads so you aren't profitable.

If they ever add accountability clauses to 'reporting' the whole sector will die. 99% is made up nonsense whether it be sport, politics etc
 
Also it shouldn't be overlooked that the average/mean age of people on the internet has risen. An 18-year-old in 1999 calling everyone "****" is now a 39-year-old with something to lose if they call people "****". People become more mature or at least do a better job cloaking their immaturity the older they get.

Hey I resemble that comment!
 
Also it shouldn't be overlooked that the average/mean age of people on the internet has risen. An 18-year-old in 1999 calling everyone "****" is now a 39-year-old with something to lose if they call people "****". People become more mature or at least do a better job cloaking their immaturity the older they get.

It was a young person's thing in the 90s and early 2000s. When I was 14/15 and talking to friends after school in ICQ, there was a social stigma if you were 35 and doing that. My oldest cousins were teenagers in the late 80s and early 90s and by late 90s were in their 20s and had no interest in internet stuff.

Now it's way more mainstream. Kids are always at the forefront of new tech and trends, but if you are 35 now and not on the internet then that's where the stigma will be. With stuff life Facebook really penetrating everything you now also see the 65 year old racist aunties etc. getting on board also having barely used a computer in their lives.

If you called someone a f** on the internet in 1999 then no one would give a * because the internet isn't real life. It still isn't, but people make a big deal out of everything hence people mostly pull their heads in.
 
It was a young person's thing in the 90s and early 2000s. When I was 14/15 and talking to friends after school in ICQ, there was a social stigma if you were 35 and doing that. My oldest cousins were teenagers in the late 80s and early 90s and by late 90s were in their 20s and had no interest in internet stuff.

Now it's way more mainstream. Kids are always at the forefront of new tech and trends, but if you are 35 now and not on the internet then that's where the stigma will be. With stuff life Facebook really penetrating everything you now also see the 65 year old racist aunties etc. getting on board also having barely used a computer in their lives.

If you called someone a f** on the internet in 1999 then no one would give a fu** because the internet isn't real life. It still isn't, but people make a big deal out of everything hence people mostly pull their heads in.

How is it now not real life?

Good video from 2015:

 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top