this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
1293 points (97.6% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35586 readers
655 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 187 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Internet was better when it was a bunch of forums and personal web pages

[–] kitonthenet@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago (4 children)

We can get it back, and the antitrust trials are a big part of actually doing it

https://youtu.be/rimtaSgGz_4?si=fQc-lIFzT-0hoeNv

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 68 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

Sure we can but will we? No.

Twitter has only lost ~10% of it's userbase after repeatedly abusing its own users. Reddit probably less. After everything we've learned about Meta, tens of millions of people signed up on day 1 to join their new service, Threads. Google Chrome still has like 80% market share.

Changing is honestly a trivial ask, but we won't, because no one cares.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago (9 children)

It's not that no one cares, per se. We just live in a society where the majority of working adults are fucking exhausted. They have bills to pay, uncertain job security, seemingly constant climate crises/natural disasters in many geolocations (e.g. Canada and US West Coast wildfires, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.), hyper polarized partisanship in many countries (yeah, it isn't unique to the US), and on and on. That Google, Microsoft, or Amazon own the internet is such a low priority to the much more immediate, life threatening/living security concerns of the majority of people.

I care, but I also understand why many people do not.

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 14 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Man, I would love to run a Linux box and still be able to run the like 4 programs I use my computer for, but I don't have any interest in running an OS I have to build and make work. I got Redhat working once (feels like a million years ago) and I am just not that interested in my PC anymore. It's a tool. I want it to work without any fiddling on my part. It has exactly 5 programs it ever has to run. I touch it on the weekends. Windows it is.

This is me agreeing with you in every way.

[–] jana@leminal.space 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fwiw Linux is way easier today than it was a million years ago. Honestly I find it simpler to use than Windows.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The internet was better when it was Usenet and Gopher.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The internet was better when it was a pair of tin cans and a string.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Oh sure, like that was an improvement over cave painting.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Honestly, the internet was at its best when it was the fever dream of stoned, sexually frustrated grad students at Berkley. Infinite potential - it could've been anything. Could've. But wouldn't. The real thing, after it became fully saturated in everyday American life, was always going to be some mediocre, watered down corporate cesspool of lowest common denominator, hyper-sanitized garbage. Because that's what people like. They like safe, familiar, predictable, and uncomplicated. Well, most people.

[–] STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world 115 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Yup. It definitely feels like over time the human element of the Internet has been replaced by a corporate one. The most blatant example I can think of is youtube. Nowadays it's so obvious rigged in the favour of already established media and a select few content creators.

[–] UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Yeah I'm feeling less like a participant, and more like a consumer on the "greater internet" (five big), compared to the early days when corporate presence was minimal, and not remotely slick or subtle. It was like dorky and obvious, and didn't seem remotely like a threat.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] RandomPancake@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I miss the day when you could search YouTube for something like "JFK skyclub" and actually get video of the Skyclub at JFK. Today you'll get 15-minute videos that are 90% a guy talking about his thoughts on JFK, or Skyclub, or airlines, or whatever. If you're really lucky, some of them may feature a few seconds of actual footage of Skyclub.

It's not just Skyclub or travel videos. If I search for "repair mr coffee" I want to see a howto, not someone's SEO-optimized long winded lecture about whatever coffeemakers they're selling.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] spacecadet@lemm.ee 88 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Worse than what? Paying Atlantic for a subscription?

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 107 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Whether we like the Atlantic or not, I feel like at some point if we want quality journalism we need to fund it.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I agree, but

They did it to themselves by starting out with free journalism everywhere on the net. And then it took them far too long to finally realize that ads alone weren't going to pay the bills. If they had stuck with the magazine rack style from the get go (pay for it + ads) it wouldn't be an issue.

If you give everything away for free for thirty years, Then make it worse, and then suddenly charge for it, you're going to have a hard time getting money.

[–] what_is_a_name@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You miss the bigger picture. The shit journalism and propaganda are still free - funded by … other means . That is why magazine have tried to be free in the internet.

You’re also operating with the wisdom of hindsight. No one knew how to handle internet publishing. We all learned together.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cave@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I pretty much agree, but I really wish we could move away from ads being literally everywhere in our lives. I'd rather them just charge a little bit more and have a better experience. It's probably falling on deaf ears, though, because nobody ever wants to pay for anything on the internet.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Steve@communick.news 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can't stand when companies double dip. I won't pay if I still get ads.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But do paywalls actually encourage people to pay? I would point out that NPR/PBS and The Guardian are at least partially funded by the people but still offer news for free and it seems to work.

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

NPR is funded by underwriters, donors, government grants, and licensing their content to affiliate stations. It’s actually really interesting to see how they’ve cobbled it together. So yeah it’s free for you and me but a lot of money is actually flowing back and forth.

Point being there are a lot of ways to fund things!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sbg@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Fair point. I don't mean to suggest that authors don't deserve to be paid for their work. And while the article discusses Google and Amazon's attempts to manipulate online behavior to drive up their profits, I remember a time when paywalls were a rare exception rather than the rule while reading articles online.

[–] Copernican@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's because there was a time when everyone had print subscriptions that were healthy, and the internet just gave them extra money for ads. When you start losing subscribers because everyone is looking at your shit online for free, you learn you need to charge for it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] uis@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 15 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

enshittification

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 36 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Simple, capitalism found a new promised land. The next space to fill up. And manifest destiny within.

Unfortunately but fortunately as well, it's an infinite space. Early money has built large infrastructure within it. It's been built over time and now is so massive it's hard to comprehend in the real world. It's nearly impossible to compete with them other than them tearing themselves down, but the space is still nearly infinitely large and competitors can still rise in the fringe and who knows after decades maybe rise to the same kinda massive company

So now we must limit the infinite. Cull all of it to the finite they can control. The virtual world is real, the metaverse is already upon us, and unfortunately it's already starting to look like the late capitalism asphalt shopping plazas.

So it's worse cause it's built for the investors and being limited for them too. It's why people beg for the next BIG thing, so that they can find new land or new ways to control this 4th space.

[–] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

so that they can find new land or new ways to control this 4th space. Pretty sure that Meta was meant to be the next big market space.

I think Zuckerberg was expecting all of us to sit in a chair with VR headsets on all day and buy buy buy.

I personally feel like it's a total invasion of my privacy because it learns "me" and then tries to influence my every move a lot more intimately than cookies in a browser does.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 13 points 1 year ago

100% absolute control over your life to sell you as much as possible.. And people consider that a utopia and not a problem

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yah don't see a small player coming around anytime soon. People don't realise how uterlu massive these tech companies are.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] the_q@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Take me back to the days of FFVII's Aerith Theme midi playing in the background of someone's Geocities site dedicated to Chrono Trigger. The non-consumer driven Web...

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] mushrooms_smell_bad@lemmings.world 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Tell me no one actually needed to be told that. Please. For my sanity.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

Its time to 'AT&T' Alphabet/Google/YouTube.

[–] FarceMultiplier@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago

Trust corporations to ruin something people enjoy.

[–] _Lost_@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Funny, but this isn't the best example. The Atlantic has been a subscription magazine for coming on 200 years now. It's also one of the few places you can get non click bait articles without ads.

[–] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago
[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago

Well, it definitely gets the point across lol

[–] Betch@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ReCursing@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

I thought this was the joke

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Good old atlantic coming to the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I would get off google if I were you

[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I strangely feel very conflicted over Google. I have a Pixel phone which supports the security hardened GrapheneOS.

Were it not for Google allowing their phones to be so easily rooted, I'd probably be with Apple, who have their own egregious privacy invading practices.

Google also left rss feeds available on Youtube, which essentially allowed me to easily move my subscriptions to my rss feeder instead of outright subscribing. Then, thanks to Invidious, I just use an extension to reroute any time I visit that channel/video.

Grant you, Google could easily remove these features that strangely enough allow for easy migration away from their platform, and I can definitely see a future where they do just that.

It just is such a strange thing for a company to have these built in aspects to their products that literally allow you to migrate away from their platform.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that this gives Google some sort of pass to do as they please. I haven't used Google search regularly in a very long time. I still use their email and calendar solely because my current job team uses it as one of their main scheduling tools, but would prefer if we used something like a NextCloud instance.

In short, I have done some things to get away from Google's suite of software and will continue to do so, but these strange loopholes, especially the interesting relationship Pixel/GrapheneOS has, make me wonder about how Google could still make certain products and remain a smaller, much more regulated, part of the Internet as a whole...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] abs_solution@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 year ago

I believe what you meant to write is "The internet IS worse"

[–] Sludgehammer@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Well... you gotta hand it to them, that's a succinct summary.

[–] Smk@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

Capitalism does not work well when companies are too big. No one can compete unless you are already very rich. That sucks.

load more comments
view more: next ›