Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

What the Web Was and What It Has Become

posted by martyb on Friday November 03 2017, @11:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the took-a-wrong-turn dept.

canopic jug writes:

The Web began dying in 2014. André Staltz writes about how and why. In a nutshell, traffic from mobile and tablet devices now surpasses that from regular desktop computers and of that traffic the overwhelming majority goes to either Faecebook or Google. Amazon is also in there. None of them have any interest in defending the open Web any more. Rather the situation is the opposite, they are aiming to carve out a section and establish very isolated walled gardens. Net Neutrality, or the lack thereof, lie at the heart of their plans based on the direction they have moved since 2014.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
What the Web Was and What It Has Become | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 83 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Saturday November 04 2017, @02:55AM (1 child)

    by crafoo (6639) on Saturday November 04 2017, @02:55AM (#592036)

    The big 3 (or 4) sites put quite a bit of tenuously-verified trust in their users' inputs. They trade on this data so it's an obvious weak point. I think the real harm done is widespread denial of personal servers. The internet was designed to be a bidirectional thing. ISPs not providing "real internet" is a serious issue and not one that I see an easy way to solve.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @01:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @01:20PM (#592146)

    ISP's have offered asymmetrical (your 'non-real') service because it was easier and that's what their customers wanted.
        Easier because of the architecture of cable modem systems and PON, and the physics of DSL Crosstalk.
        What they wanted was web browsing as in, send up a little request and get back a big page.

    With fiber, newer Docsis, and vectoring, upstream b/w is more doable if there is demand.

    The question is, is there a widespread demand past pushing things upstream for distribution by major sites?
    As long as one upstream push supports multiple downloads, the desired service will be asymmetrical.

    It seems like the connecting folks type of apps could be decentralized.
    But, where's a profit motive to build a cloudless/p2p service that supplants G, YT, and/or FB's server farms?

    The trust thing might come down to accountability thru reputation (see ebay/amazon). Perhaps p2p is a better way to do this?