What's needed is a web of trust moderation system which can be used to filter email, Usenet, and social media sites. Go forth and write!

They don't want any competition for their own malevolent disinformation, which is redundant.

And she's right, she has herself as an example.

Unfortunately she's incapable of understanding this means that she is a terrible parent.

This place is run by crypto thugs who are also invested in AI. It's not a surprise when they mod down posts which threaten their portfolios.

"The "people" presumably the public have zero clue what work you directly produced. They see a road was built. They elected an official who ran on a policy of building roads. No one cares if "Arrogant-Bastard" (LOL, thanks, I don't often get a chuckle when looking up who I'm talking to, though you don't come across as one :-) ), did the soil load calculation of the road."

This is not only false in that there are people who care, but it's also false in that they have a right to know and they can get that information via FOIA request in the US.

The Internet is by definition a network of networks. Therefore how you define it will be defined by how you define networks. However, since a reasonable definition of a network includes all of the devices on that network, it is also reasonable to include the functions provided by those devices.

The internet IS bloodsucking corporations, that's the rub. In early days it was a bunch of schools. Under their benevolent stewardship, the Internet flourished. When its mission was research, it was healthy. As corporations took over providing the backbone, it became ever more malignant. This should lead to obvious conclusions about the influence of the profit motive on all things, but too many people have been brainwashed by prosperity theologists to get it.

...Nothing on them but cranky bastards contributing to climate change while moving between ticky-tacky, 40+ hours of indentured servitude, and temples to Mammon.

I largely agree with most of Klee's points, but there's a serious bias issue with his conclusion: "The internet" is just the road we use to get somewhere. Where we go is up to us most of the time. And in this case, the "old internet" is still mostly there - Case in point, I still have a crappy static personal website up that hasn't been updated since the 1990s.

Problem is, nobody wants to read my ramblings from 30 years ago any more than they did 30 years ago. People want FAANGs, even while they may openly resent those same platforms. Sure, Amazon is evil... But the alternative is leaving the house and going to a store, eew! NetFlix kills everything good after two seasons, but two seasons on-demand beats a 30-second stick-figure animation that takes six weeks per "episode" and depends on the unpaid hobbyist creator not getting bored with the project. TikTok is measurably destroying the attention spans of our youth, but we can't risk missing the next big "hold my beer and watch this" moment.

The problem isn't "the internet". The problem is us as a collective whole. When there's demand for trash, sanitation engineers flip to supply side.

No need to use tokens for that, just detect keywords and link them to ads. Which makes it even weirder that they are failing

But then they own a bunch of unprofitable companies, and what's the end game? Even not charging themselves markup for hardware won't make the industry profitable.

"Google's problem is that it doesn't have a platform to embed ads in."

Wat

The primary reason companies advertise with Google is to drive search results to their site.

If AI summaries become good enough that nobody needs to click the links anymore - What are advertisers paying for? "Brand recognition" only takes things so far, at some point they need real customers to drop in and throw money at them or they won't have anything to advertise.

Tell us you didn't understand the statement without telling us.

Double down on telling us you understand nothing about this conversation. You actually manage people? Here's how it works: Until AI can pay for itself, it's a net negative. You're chained to a rock sitting on a melting ice floe.

Yes, they are, and nuclear has shitty lifetime emissions if you count the mining and processing and transportation and decommissioning activities.

My company ships data dumps like this to multiple vendors on a monthly (sometimes weekly) basis.

My side of that equation takes security very seriously. The recipients... Well... When someone offers to send you credentials out-of-channel, the right response is never "Just email it, this isn't a shared account" followed by getting cranky at being told that ain't happening.