this post was submitted on 10 May 2025
163 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

2607 readers
584 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RobotZap10000@feddit.nl 4 points 7 hours ago

Using the more-than-zero-click internet of today is like sticking your dick into the mysterious mush at the bottom of a dumpster; maybe it'll feel good, but it will also certainly feel absolutely disgusting no matter what.

A screenshot of the movie "Idiocracy". It shows a man watching the TV while obnoxious advertisements cover most of the screen.
This is unironically how half of the planet uses the internet. Do you notice anything that might turn them off from clicking on another 5 links to find an answer to their question? Just one reason for them to all flock to ChatGPT for all of their browsing needs? I don't, because I'm part of the other half that uses an adblocker, that has an objectively better experience of the internet. But now that Google is turning the screws on the browser extensions, that half might also stop clicking altogether.

Then there are the cookie banners, the email-begging popups, the login walls, the top 3 or 5 or more search results being barely-relevant sponsored garbage, the dark patterns and so on and so forth. It just becomes too much to bear. Maybe not everyone is equipped with the understanding of the existence of enshittification, but everyone sure is sick and tired of it.

And finally, there's the dreaded paywall:
A screenshot of the payment plans for a subscription for "The Atlantic" magazine. A banner at the top of the page reminds you that you receive a tote bag if you pay for the more expensive plan. The cheapest plan at 80 USD a year gives you unlimited access to digital articles and the 90 USD plan gets you printed magazines as well. It also has a checkbox to go ad-free for an additional 30 USD
Everyone complains day and night about people not fact-checking information across multiple sources, but how on earth are we expected to do that with every single story when all of the journalism websites want you to whip out your credit card (they don't even take my bank's payment processor) to sign up for yet another subscription that STILL HAS ADS. Of course I'm going straight to the Wayback Machine (which is under attack from hackers and lawsuits) or paywall removers (which seem to work less and less). However, once again, most people don't bypass them or don't know how to, so they either pay up or or try to find another way.

Today, our way of life requires us to ask countless questions which we simply don't know the answers to. The fastest way to find them is through websites via search engines, but since shareholders value growth over profit, they all must be chock full of the aforementioned crap and bloat. The zero-click internet offers all of the benefits without any of the drawbacks. The nonzero-click internet simply doesn't compete in time or convenience, even if it does in accuracy. If they want to have their users back, they'll need to make their services not painful to use.

[–] 4k93n2@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 hours ago

duckduckgo added the "instant answers" sidebar for the first time back in 2014 and google did the same not too long after, so its definitely not a new issue

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 19 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Oh no! Not the business model!

[–] smokinliver@sopuli.xyz 11 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Imagine we had to go back to creative, self-hosted websites, wouldn't that be terrible

[–] 4k93n2@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

back to the good old days when "self-hosting" wasnt even a term because of course you would be hosting it yourself!

[–] nerv@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 7 hours ago

Yes, please. Let's do that.

[–] nthavoc 34 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Reminder: the Internet has its roots from ARPANET which is designed to survive an atomic blast and openly available to learn. A dead web business model won't kill the technology that allows humans to instantly communicate. If anything a new internet may come of this once the money dries up.

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Ah yes when the money that we give monthly to connect dries up. Yes that money will certainly dry up sometime

[–] nthavoc 1 points 5 hours ago

You're mixing ISP fees with Ad/monetized content revenue (the "web business model"). One is a shortcut to not having build your own infrastructure and the other is for people we don't really need for the internet to function.

[–] kalpol@lemm.ee 20 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Yep there is nothing stopping new web sites coming online. It's just hard to find them. Guess what was also hard in the early Internet days? Finding them. Web rings may make a big comeback.

[–] MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 hours ago

I have a few books that came free with PC mags back in the day, full of links to mad crazy websites and interesting/useful stuff. So few pixels back then!!

[–] ozoned@piefed.social 19 points 1 day ago

Long live the Fediverse?

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The zero click searches just haven't been monetized yet. Don't worry they are working on it

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

Totino’s Pizza Rolls remind you AI makes mistakes, always double check important information. [AD]

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 64 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe it’s a good thing if the Internet eats itself.

[–] Photuris@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 day ago (4 children)

If only we can somehow figure out how to bring back something like the web of the ’90s

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 5 points 15 hours ago

youre pretty much in it.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Federation, mostly. Places like Lemmy and Mastodon aren’t obsessed with optimizing ad spend, so there’s a lot less incentive to enshittify.

[–] Photuris@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago

I have high hopes

[–] stray@pawb.social 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

YouTubers are doing webrings again, I shit you not. I love it.

[–] Photuris@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago

Ok that’s cool

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It mostly still exists, you just arent interacting with it.

[–] ByteSorcerer@beehaw.org 5 points 17 hours ago

Unfortunately no one else is interacting with it either. I miss the old style forums, and most of the ones I used to frequent are still online. But they all haven't had any real activity in years, so they aren't really usable anymore unfortunately.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 23 hours ago

I call it the side web.

It feels like sneaking along on the shoulder of the information super highway.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well the internet had a good run up to about 2008

[–] VitoRobles 5 points 15 hours ago

It was around that time when we started making people visit the same 5-10 sites. Facebook virus indeed.

[–] nothx@hexbear.net 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Good?

Not that I want more AI, but killing the internets business model can only be good for the future of the internet imo.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think we will like the new model though.

I mean IDK what it will be, but it will be implemented by tech bros working for tech giants.

[–] nothx@hexbear.net 1 points 6 hours ago

Agreed, it only gets worse before it gets worse.

[–] fubarx@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Google is in an interesting predicament. Their ad service brings in so much revenue, but it's based on search sending traffic to places where those ads are consumed.

Boost search through Overviews and you're limiting the effectiveness and reach of your ad service. And to top it off, your search needs content to ingest and remain relevant. But if the ad revenue drops off to websites, they go out of business, so search has less stuff to ingest.

It's like a reverse flywheel, where each part is working to harm the other part. People have been pointing this out for the last couple of years, but Google search just keeps adding more to Overviews and choking off the flow.

And before you say "good, I hate ads," most of the internet today and its services are paid by ad revenue changing hands. That includes ISPs that host the Fediverse, networking and storage gear makers, pretty much everything to do with open source, and so many jobs that exist to keep the whole thing humming so we can enjoy cat memes.

If Google (or someone like Cloudflare) doesn't figure out a way to keep the money flowing, we may be watching a sea shift in how the internet has worked in the last 30 years.

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I think Google can never really hope to disrupt itself. The entire company is oriented towards selling those ads. So any other internal division that tries to eliminate the ads division is going to have a very uphill battle.

IMO the industry is ripening for disruption and someone will come along with a new idea for how to incentivize content generation and it will very likely continue to involve some heavy commercial marketing.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 15 hours ago

yea they need those ads, youtube ads bring in around 37bn for the platform in ad revenue.