I’m not sure that I’ve phrased this question well, or that I even know how to ask this question well.
Once upon a time, I looked at the web as akin to an igneous rock, whereas now I think of it as a sedimentary rock.
The web has changed a lot in the last ~5 years. Sure, it can withstand a nuclear blast or whatever it was designed to withstand, but it clearly wasn’t designed to have usage patterns designed to endure.
For me, the thing that really drove this point home was a (possibly fake, possibly a joke) business card I once saw online. I don’t specifically remember where I saw it, but I remember it was like a name and then where the title would typically go, it said “bounty hunter, soldier of fortune,” and other dubious jobs. When I saw it, I thought it was hilarious. However, when I tried to find it again years later, I could not.
That experience got me to thinking that the primary usage pattern I had come to expect was not prevalent. Moreover, I remember having to cite sources in school papers by listing URLs, and I was never also taught that those links are transient – that was something I learned via living.
Obviously, a public school college professor is not like a magic oracle that knows all the right answers and how the future unfolds, I get that. This all just gets me to thinking about the ephemerality of knowledge. I remember being very enthusiastic about Google once upon a time. I saw a Google video where someone from there said Google’s mission was to make all human knowledge universally accessible. I was like majorly seduced by that. Now ~20 years later, the web – you know: the one Google owns 😒 – is like a maze of ads. That isn’t really what I had in mind when I heard “all human knowledge.”
Anyway, I mention all of this because my first impression was that humans sought to record what was known so as to build upon that. Now, my impression is that the digital commons got turned into forum of captive buyers without the language used ever changing, so it’s a shift that’s difficult to detect.
What the FUCK are you talking about
Do you sincerely not understand, or are you just trying to be funny?
I sincerely do not understand what you’re saying or what it really means. I’m not an idiot either. (I know you didn’t say I was just adding for clarification)
It’s interesting cuz about half the comments were like ppl making fun of me or whatever, and about half made relevant comments. Moreover, I got a lot of down votes, and I thought the post was quite anodyne.
One comment illustrated to me that I have been perhaps using a flawed mental model for what the www is for around 30 years.
I don’t understand either. Troll or therapy, choose one.
Jesse what the fuck are you smoking?
If only it were so easy!
The internet is made up of all sorts of disparate connected actors. If you need information management, then it’s up to you to bookmark, screenshot, or even take a web archive of important sources because a web server is ephemeral. There are services that attempt to do this, but they are one server bill or legal challenge or hacking incident away from disappearing.
But just like you didn’t painstakingly preserve your collection of funny business card pictures because, really, who cares, neither did anyone else. I’d say about 90% of my oeuvre has been lost to the landfill of dead internet (any in many cases, rightfully so). That’s my own writing, which I at least have some interest in. I’ve ready some funny posts in my life, but I didn’t archive them just in case I wanted to experience the joke again.
So your original question — Is the www using a good information mgmt strategy? — presupposes there is any overarching strategy. There is not. There are places like Google and Amazon which have massive amounts of data redundantly stored throughout the cloud. And there are places like my little webapp I’m running on my Raspberry Pi that has no redundancy, no backup, and at some point a component will die and that will be the end of it.
Should there be? No. That would place the internet under control of one authority, and I’m pretty certain there is no one except authoritarians who thinks that would be acceptable.
Thank you for responding.
I had never thought of this before, but it’s like that Borges story (and Charlie Kaufman movie) where a guy realizes the only literal map of the empire has to be the size of the empire.
That’s interesting, as it suggests the www is an abstraction of itself. All along, I have envisioned it with a model that simply isn’t accurate, and I just never noticed.
I’m not sure that I’ve phrased this question well, or that I even know how to ask this question well.
Consensus seems to be no, you didn’t ask this well. I think you could be onto something but you didn’t communicate any information to argue your point.
I think the problem comes from your premise. The WWW is not something that can have an information management strategy, good or bad. The WWW is a communication system that allows us to talk to other parts of the world, it is not the servers that the WWW talks to. Even if the servers were the WWW, they aren’t run by just one group. Anyone can run a server that connects to the WWW. This makes it impossible for there to be a single information management strategy; instead, every server has their own information management strategy. You also fail to describe what you mean by an “information management strategy” and what you consider to be a good or bad one.
And now, some editorial notes:
Once upon a time, I looked at the web as akin to an igneous rock, whereas now I think of it as a sedimentary rock.
Starting with a metaphor is fine, but without context (either before or after) it doesn’t mean anything. E.g. “Once upon a time I thought I was a duck, but now I think I’m a goose” sounds profound but it doesn’t actually contribute anything to the conversation.
The web has changed a lot in the last ~5 years. Sure, it can withstand a nuclear blast or whatever it was designed to withstand, but it clearly wasn’t designed to have usage patterns designed to endure.
You’re misunderstanding what was designed to withstand a nuclear blast. Web servers are not the self-healing communication standards that connect them.
Also, you use “designed” twice which makes it sort of tautological. I.e. “it wasn’t designed to be designed”.For me, the thing that really drove this point home
You still haven’t stated a point. You’ve only asked a question up to this point in your post. You then bring up some anecdotes which you probably meant to support your point, but a reader can only guess what that point is so it’s confusing and unhelpful.
Anyway, I mention all of this because my first impression was that humans sought to record what was known so as to build upon that. Now, my impression is that the digital commons got turned into [a] forum of captive buyers without the language used ever changing, so it’s a shift that’s difficult to detect.
Is this your point??? It doesn’t have anything to do with your original question. If you’re going to argue a point, then please introduce it before you provide information to back up your point. While a standard essay layout is not required, the idea of an introduction, supporting information, then conclusion is always a good logical flow that everyone can follow.
By the end of your post, I’m still left wondering what information management strategy you want or what improvements you want to the existing one that the WWW uses.
A couple of comments.
-
The Google of old isn’t today’s Google. They dropped the don’t be evil for a reason. Their unspoken motto is now - We’re Evil with a capital E. Everything is dual use. E.g. Google maps makes getting around new areas easy, but the US also now has precision targeting data of everything globally. Equally, you are the product not the customer. US military and corporate power get google’s good stuff. You get ads and enshittification. Your disappointment is because you aren’t aware of your proper place in the grand scheme of things, and are just now on the verge of understanding with this post.
-
Postsecondary papers are only supposed to cite academically rigorous research from respectable journals. You are talking about high school “research” methods outside of acceptable contexts. I was just talking to my son minutes ago about how most web searches now pull up bot slop, and the dead internet theory is no longer a theory.
-
As for enduring usage patterns, life is evolution. Technology is exponentially more so. This is why science fiction is full of dystopian tech gone wrong. We literally know humans can’t keep up and its only a matter of time before this all gets away from us.
We were already drowning in too much data that can’t be synthesized 40 years ago. Now it’s infinitely more so. To counter this, LLMs will sift through the data and escalate as required.
Thank you for leaving this comment.
I think if I have an “original sin” it’s that I was simply naive …my whole life! I didn’t think we’d all join hands around the world, but I think I believed in a few things that seem foolish. For instance, I thought people wanted to like improve their own lives, which seems downstream of knowledge, but I sincerely had no idea deception and propaganda would be so big.
-
I ahoulda made an outline! As goes speech class, so goes life!
Thank you for taking the time to respond nevertheless. BTW, the tautology you called out was an accident I alllllmost went back to fix.
Dang I just noticed I got a lot of down votes on this post! Tough crowd!
My point (if it can be found) stands – the www is a publishing platform, but in its early days, the notion was that it was an archive, whereas the prevailing usage is much more fleeting. Of course, as you mentioned, there is no singular usage pattern, as everyone has an individual mental model for it.
