"The web" is full of ads. Google search is unusable. Ad-blocking is fought against. Content is tailored to be as long as possible to render more ad impressions. Mobile views have 3% content and the rest is ads. 27 compliance popups about cookies and tracking and offers would show on top of the information that you're looking for, all of them rigged so you click the option that they want.
Is that the web you want to save? Let it die.
Because this romantic view of the web as this "ocean of free information" has been dead for a very long time.
I wonder why someone would even be surprised that people just moves naturally to something better? Something that's not even remotely so hostile to the user?
And yes: when VC capital dries up, AI will become equally hostile.
Then people will move to the better thing and we'll have articles about "Better thing is killing AI".
Yes... but that ocean has a lot of trash and algal blooms to work around. If you're not careful, you end up the sea turtle with a stomach full of plastic.
That issue of varying quality of web-based information (and varying ability to assess said quality) has also been the case for a long time.
This has been said previously, but it's worth repeating. Use Firefox (w/ ublock-origin) and Firefox on android. Or use one of the alternative Chrome browsers.
This is true and hardly a secret and the fact the Economist is being forgetful here is itself information.
So the actual question here is what are the (financial, geopolitical, social engineering) incentives for the stakeholders of the Economist (please spare me "journalism" tropes) to poo poo AI in this manner.
Guys chill out it's a simple question. Everyone here works at companies that make profit but then turn into hardcore communists when they have to see some ads.
I'm just trying to figure out where the line is here. If you vote for communists and socialists, then by all means continue to discuss regulating the internet so it is a socialist Utopia.
If you don't consider yourself a communist or socialist, I'm wondering if you've ever considered how your personal value system would drive you to want to regulate the internet with an iron fist when other industries, like healthcare, schooling, and infrastructure go unmaintained.
This community seems to be full of capitalists in most discussions, but turns hyper-leftist when opining for the "old internet." We get it, guys. The internet has been monetized in a way that you don't like. What the fuck are you going to do about it? Are you going to simply recognize that the free market created this circumstance, or are you going to just keep bitching about it?
Are you also going to admit that creating a pay-to-play internet creates a caste system? It's not as simple as "wah I don't want to see ads." It's a tiring conversation.
Nobody except you mentioned communism, socialism, leftism or anything like that. I think you're arguing against something you just conjured up yourself.
Is that the web you want to save? Let it die.
Because this romantic view of the web as this "ocean of free information" has been dead for a very long time.
I wonder why someone would even be surprised that people just moves naturally to something better? Something that's not even remotely so hostile to the user?
And yes: when VC capital dries up, AI will become equally hostile.
Then people will move to the better thing and we'll have articles about "Better thing is killing AI".