It's Official: The Internet is The Worst Thing Ever

Depends on the question.

Also, I don't bother to open a new tab, go to google.com and type in the search bar. I do my searching directly from the address bar.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Whenever I google something, it gives me an unsolicited AI-generated answer.
Click to expand...
Yep, followed by the advert stuff, the search results from webpages start about halfway down the page.

The reason for me ignoring the AI "summary" is twofold, one is of course because it gets too much wrong too often so you have to go to the websites it says the summary is based on to check the answer it has given you meaning it takes longer to look something up, the second is because I am usually looking for something specific not a general summary about a topic.

However I have learnt over the years that many people struggle to use search engines effectively, I'm often still surprised when people really can't find what they think they are looking for with regular search engines. I suspect for many folk the AI answers/summaries appear much more useful than a page of vanilla search results. Of course the issue than becomes how much they will lead people astray with incorrect results.
 
In the aftermath of Australia banning social media for <16s, a couple of 15-year-olds look to be stumping for a career in comedy:

Social media companies and the Australian government should be using their resources to remove predators and harmful content from platforms rather than banning under-16s
Click to expand...

www.bbc.com

Australia social media ban: Get rid of harmful content instead of us, say teens

From 10 December, social media firms must ensure Australians aged under 16 cannot have accounts.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
Darat said:
Yep, followed by the advert stuff, the search results from webpages start about halfway down the page.

The reason for me ignoring the AI "summary" is twofold, one is of course because it gets too much wrong too often so you have to go to the websites it says the summary is based on to check the answer it has given you meaning it takes longer to look something up, the second is because I am usually looking for something specific not a general summary about a topic.

However I have learnt over the years that many people struggle to use search engines effectively, I'm often still surprised when people really can't find what they think they are looking for with regular search engines. I suspect for many folk the AI answers/summaries appear much more useful than a page of vanilla search results. Of course the issue than becomes how much they will lead people astray with incorrect results.
Click to expand...

I was horrified to read that some people don't even have bookmarks for their bank's URL*.

Apparently they search on Google every time, and click on the first link.

I found out about this in reporting about a number of Australians who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, because the first link was a scammer, not their bank.

*in all likelihood, some of those people would have no idea what a URL is, I've assisted some people who don't even have an address bar visible in their browser.
 
novaphile said:
I was horrified to read that some people don't even have bookmarks for their bank's URL*.

Apparently they search on Google every time, and click on the first link.
Click to expand...
Hey, at least they aren't typing it in on the command line.
novaphile said:
I found out about this in reporting about a number of Australians who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, because the first link was a scammer, not their bank.
Click to expand...
How did that happen, was Google asleep at the switch?
novaphile said:
*in all likelihood, some of those people would have no idea what a URL is, I've assisted some people who don't even have an address bar visible in their browser.
Click to expand...
What do you need an address bar for anyway? Oh yeah, to search for stuff. :boggled:

How do you get the url to make that bookmark? Back to square one.

I know someone who doesn't use bookmarks and just types the url in every time. She's a highly skilled IT professional who has been doing it for 30 years. Only problem is it's too easy to misspell the name and end up on the wrong site. Pretty embarrassing when you land on a porn site that won't let you close it (I still have nightmares about that).
 
I don't use bookmarks and just type the URL every time. Well, part of the URL. And I do use bookmarks actually because that makes them appear more quickly so never mind. I never go to my bookmarks to open a site because just typing a few letters of the name is usually easier.
 
Ironically, I use bookmarks for my employer's websites, because they all hew to different internal naming conventions, or lack thereof.

For my bank an my healthcare provider, the legit root URLs are well established, and easily remembered by my browser. Trust, but verify, serves me well enough.
 
arthwollipot said:
I knew I couldn't be the only one.
Click to expand...

In my case, I have a bunch of bookmarks, and the most commonly used ones are buttons on the bookmarks toolbar.

But yes, Google was asleep at the wheel to allow scammers to put up sites like that.

My best guess? Their entire advertising process is automated.
 
My bookmark lists got so long it became quicker to search for a site again than find it in the folder.

The main thing I still use it for is the Amazon pages of book series I've started reading. Without those I'd never remember the name of the authors, let alone the series, when I look for more books to download.
 
I used to keep a carefully curated list of bookmarks, sorted diligently into folders. Then one day I realised that I never used them and couldn't even remember what I'd saved. So I deleted them all and never looked back.

Of course, I also have 53 open tabs in three separate windows, so I've got that going for me.
 
arthwollipot said:
If the High Court doesn't overturn it first.

www.abc.net.au

Social media ban for under-16s challenged in High Court

Australia's social media age ban is being challenged in the High Court on the grounds that it restricts young teens' implied right to freedom of political communication.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
Just an anecdote, but my 23-year-old son recently thanked me and his mother for not giving him a smartphone until he was in high school.
 
arthwollipot said:
doi.org

How the internet became enshittified – and how we might be able to deshittify it

The internet offered a world of connection and cooperation. What we got was a world of ruthless monopolies and oligarchs.
doi.org doi.org
Click to expand...
Couldn't you link directly to the actual article?

We were offered a world of connection and cooperation – an open-source paradise of instant and free access, liberated from the fetters of both corporate ownership and state control.

What we got was a world of ruthless monopolies and oligarchs who control a colossal surveillance apparatus capable of tracking our most private behaviours, producing a population of powerless, compliant consumers – people who have no choice but to keep using their abysmally bad products, because there is nowhere else to go.
Click to expand...
This person apparently wasn't around in the 90's when the internet went mainstream. In those days it was expected that commercial websites would charge a fee for their services, and many did. But they quickly discovered that this business model didn't scale. So they shifted to ad-based revenue gathering, starting with with so-called 'affiliate links'. Of course they couldn't be bothered vetting those links because that would cost them time and money.

The net then became ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ with bad actors taking advantage of ignorant users who wanted everything for free. Remember Napster? Viruses and malware everywhere, pages bogged down with crappy ads, bogus popups and links you dare not click on. Meanwhile ISPs charged an arm and a leg for every byte transferred, on top of outrageous monthly fees.

Add to that Netscape inventing the worst programming language of all time, Javascript, a non-standard extension to HTML that broke compatibility and created a security hole big enough to drive a truck through. And again they tricked users into becoming a slave to it by offering Netscape Navigator for free.

Then mainstrean businesses arrived that wanted to turn the net into sales brochures with a format more suited to printed material, breaking the core concept of HTML. Website developers shoved in as much javasctript as they could to force pages into the layout they wanted, tailored to suit only the lastest most popular browsers (which then scrambled to make themselves compatible). A beautiful open standard destroyed by commercial interests. This all happaned way back in the 90's.

Since then things have gotten somewhat better. More powerful hardware and cheaper data rates have made things like streaming video viable, security is much better, web browers have ad blockers and privicy protection etc. Google and others created business models that weren't onerous and provided casual users with useful free services in exchange for targeted ads that are mostly legit. Online sales are easy and safe, giving us direct access to markets that previously were scalped by middlemen. Sure some service providers have grown into 'monopolies' with enormous clout, but that's what we want.

Google wouldn't be able to offer a fraction of the cool stuff they give us if they weren't so big. Amazon, eBay, PayPal etc. are doing an excellent job of connecting buyers to sellers so we can get products more easily and cheaper. Social media sites allow people all over the world to enjoy conversing and sharing stuff. Anybody can create their website with whatever they want on it at very low cost, as well as have their own free YouTube channel etc.

So why are people complaining about ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊? It's not because of the services being provided by 'ruthless monopolies and oligarchs', they are just giving us what we want. The problem is the same as it was in the early days, bad actors hijacking the net for their neferious purposes. And many of them are us. We turned social media sites into cesspools of hate and misinformation. We encourage scams by being greedy and having unrealistic expectations. We use the net to boost our egos and make easy money. We are drowning the net in AI generated slop.

But of course as usual we blame others rather than admitting our own role. It's always somene else's fault. Just eat the rich and the net will become a paradise overnight! Except it wouldn't of course. Google has finally dropped the ability to search without Javascript and a 'modern' web browser. This is sad for the few of us using ancient computers, but I can't complain. I've had 30 years of free searches on my hobby computer that was made in 1992 - can't ask for better support than that! What it has shown me is just what excellent value Google is providing - not just with searching and maps etc., but in making products avaliable that otherwise I could only pine over. Now I have to use a lesser search engine on my 33 year old computer, and it feels like being back in the 90s. The net was a lot ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ back then.
 
Last edited:
I admittedly waste too much time on the internet/social media/etc., and have at times purposefully abstained - as it's quite remarkable how much more focused one can be without this distraction. And my kids aren't getting their own phones anytime soon. Though they might complain, it truly is for their own good.

DIGITAL DISTRACTIONS WITH PEER INFLUENCE: THE IMPACT OF MOBILE APP USAGE ON ACADEMIC AND LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES

G7cuf6JWoAAK1vR
 
arthwollipot said:
Unfortunately no, because the URL and title use the word "◊◊◊◊" and it wouldn't link properly. But the DOI link redirected perfectly when I tested it.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a deliberate attempt to thwart the swear word censor. Congrats, you appear to have gotten away with it.

My problems with this are:-

1. I don't know where the link is taking me, which makes it a potential security risk.
2. Can't copy the text so I have to follow the link (see 1.)

As for the censoring of swear words, I guess that's just another example of how the internet is the Worst Thing Ever.

Wikipedia: ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊
◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, also known as crapification and platform decay, is a pattern in which two-sided online products and services decline in quality over time. Initially, vendors create high-quality offerings to attract users, then they degrade those offerings to better serve business customers, and finally degrade their services to users and business customers to maximize short-term profits for shareholders.

Canadian writer Cory Doctorow coined the neologism ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ in November 2022. Though he was not the first to describe the concept, his term has been widely adopted. The American Dialect Society selected it as its 2023 Word of the Year, with Australia's Macquarie Dictionary following suit for 2024. Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com also list ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ as a word.
Click to expand...
2023 Word of the Year, considered by such prestegious institutions as Merriam-Webster and the Financial Times as fit to print, but we can't use it here because?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom