←back to thread

604 points wyldfire | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.417s | source
Show context
mycologos ◴[] No.26350071[source]
One of my pet meta-theories about Hacker News is that the frustration expressed over several apparently different stories really has a single source: Hacker News likes the internet of 10-20 years ago a lot more than the average person.

One place this shows up is a frequently-expressed sentiment that the internet is a less magical, less weird, and more corporate place than it was 10-20 years ago. Part of this may be because SEO has diluted the voices of individual creators. But part of it is also because way more average, everyday, tech-unsavvy people are on the internet now.

Another example is the periodic highlighting of somewhat garish HTML-based websites. I like these too! My own personal website falls in this category! But as far as I know, the generic internet user likes the generic slick-graphics-and-whitespace style, and so go the websites that want to attract them.

More relevant to the topic at hand, many comments in this thread argue that targeted ads are unnecessary for a functional internet, since the internet of 20 years ago seemed to work just fine without targeted ads. But, again, it's less clear to me that general internet users -- that is, mostly people who never experienced the internet of 20 years ago -- have the same preference.

It's funny, because I'm to a large extent on HN's side on this one. But my enthusiasm is tempered by my sneaking suspicion that the other side is a lot bigger, and my side is actually powered by more elitism and nostalgia than I thought.

replies(21): >>26350120 #>>26350181 #>>26350476 #>>26350669 #>>26350739 #>>26350880 #>>26350916 #>>26351088 #>>26351504 #>>26351687 #>>26351861 #>>26351976 #>>26351982 #>>26352045 #>>26352261 #>>26352709 #>>26352710 #>>26353682 #>>26355085 #>>26355515 #>>26366640 #
ErikVandeWater ◴[] No.26350120[source]
I would say that the average HN user isn't so much opposed to targetted ads as they are opposed to organizations that are unaccountable to them storing their personal information in an insecure way. And Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. all provided information to the NSA so it could illegally spy on almost every American with access to the internet.
replies(3): >>26350183 #>>26351316 #>>26352578 #
1. vaidhy ◴[] No.26350183[source]
This also seems to be a tech-elite/libertarian mindset and borders on paranoia. Does the average voter care enough to vote one way or other for it? I would suspect not.. they have bigger problems to deal with and they seem ok with government knowing something about them.
replies(1): >>26350229 #
2. __blockcipher__ ◴[] No.26350229[source]
Being opposed to something that is literally proven to actually happen is "tech-elite/libertarian mindset and borders on paranoia"? I don't understand your point of view at all, frankly.

It's okay to say that you personally don't believe in a right to privacy or don't believe that it's an issue to vacuum up the data of own's own citizens, etc, but what I don't understand is saying that other people are paranoid elitists if they hold the view that they think it's wrong to spy on citizens. It seems incredibly uncharitable.

Furthermore your comment reads like you're addressing an argument the GP never made. What's the relevance of this section:

> Does the average voter care enough to vote one way or other for it? I would suspect not.. they have bigger problems to deal with and they seem ok with government knowing something about them.

The GP never insinuated that the average voter cares about such things (indeed by mentioning that the HN userbase does that implies that the general population does not otherwise it would not be worth mentioning)