• Brustadnrift@lemm.ee
    1751·
    2 years ago

    Man, this is depressing. While I wasn’t “raised online” since I was raised on dialup and couldn’t block the phone line all that long.

    I still remember when google was the new kid on the block and the general feeling about them across early Internet forums.

    Microsoft was evil because they copied everybody else’s stuff and wanted to charge for it. Apple was clueless making expensive junk. Sun was a darling for a while at least until they started pulling shit.

    Enter mother-fucking-Google. Ethical. Honest. Not evil. Smart. Supporting open source. And on top of all that, FREE to use. Like Microsoft wants to charge you for hotmail if you want an inbox > 2MB? Fucking EVIL!!! Google is ethical because they are completely free!!! And I hear they are working on an email service too. Google just wants to shepherd the internet and protect it from companies like Microsoft, Apple, and AOL.

    Oh Google.

    • johnthedoe@lemmy.ml
      25·
      2 years ago

      Google was so exciting. Gmail especially.

      We were so keen to ditch yahoo messenger and msn as soon as facebook messenger came out too.

      Now it all sucks.

      • Aielman15@lemmy.world
        9·
        2 years ago

        I miss the old days, browsing internet forums and discovering for the first time that there exist people out there who like the same nerdy things that I do!

    • Dekthro@lemm.ee
      4·
      2 years ago

      since I was raised on dialup and couldn’t block the phone line all that long.

      That bit reminded me that my mom had a desktop application that takes messages for you when we were using the dial up.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      2·
      2 years ago

      A company that survives long enough eventually gets turned to the dark $ide. Greedy asshats will always ruin a good thing for their own benefit

      • kittenbridgeasteroid@discuss.tchncs.de
        4·
        2 years ago

        Any company that becomes publicly traded gets turned to the dark side. That’s the factor that does it because they have a legal requirement to do everything they can to maximize profits.

        Trying to sustain perpetual growth will always lead to companies fucking over their customers and employees.

        • blindbunny@lemmy.mlEnglish
          2·
          2 years ago

          While I feel this is true there are so few privately owned companies that prove this as fact. Holds breath that steam never fucks over its customers

  • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.ml
    48·
    2 years ago

    All of this led to me ditching all of those (except YouTube, this is without a real alternative due to the content exclusively hosted there) and starting to self-host my stuff and joining the Fediverse.

    • Fest@lemmy.world
      131·
      2 years ago

      you can use invidious or piped on PC and newpipe on a phone. just be careful cause i heard google removed newpipe from the playstore and someone put something malicious with the same name, but im not sure how that situation is going

    • J Lou@mastodon.social
      111·
      2 years ago

      To have some sort of viable fediverse alternative to YouTube, the developers of it would have to abandon some of the free software principles that current fediverse platforms uphold. There needs to be a way to monetize to attract creators and get people to host the servers

      • miniu@beehaw.org
        3·
        2 years ago

        Free in software should stand for freedom, not money. We need better ways for financing such software projects and creators making content on them.

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          1·
          2 years ago

          Yeah free as in freedom not as in price.

          The closest anyone’s come to a mechanism that would allow efficient financing of public goods like free software is quadratic funding. Unfortunately, there are unsolved issues with collusion and identity verification

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
      311·
      2 years ago

      Yeah but…ordinary people were not dialing into BBS forums back then. We weren’t “raised” online like kids now are, we were able to log off anytime and not ever need it to function in society. That started changing in the early 2000s. All my kid’s school assignments are now done on a laptop on a district-owned cloud system. He hasn’t needed a pencil and paper in…I forgot how long.

      If you’re around my age, congratulations on being the last generation to ever know what the world was like before widespread use of the Internet.

      • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
        31·
        2 years ago

        If you’re around my age, congratulations on being the last generation to ever know what the world was like before widespread use of the Internet.

        This is why I always insist that the cutoff between millenial and Gen Z is 1995. There’s a pretty obvious generational split along this topic and 1995 seems to be the birth year of the divide

      • Someology@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        Most districts don’t own a cloud system. They subscribe to one from a big vendor, and that vendor is scraping that sweet sweet data (aggregated and anonymity of course, because, kids), but still.

    • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
      15·
      2 years ago

      Eh. But what does it mean to be raised online? I think for that you need the availability of ever present internet connections in the form of mobile devices. I think the first kids raised online would have been born in 2003, and would have been 4, preschool age, in 2007 when the iPhone came out. Those kids are 16 now. If we want to set the standard for “raised online” as being “digital native” then I think we should dial back the range to when AIM was popular. Again, setting the standard for who could have been raised with that constant interconnectedness as being someone who was 4 at time of introduction would give us the first AIM connected people reaching age 30 right now.

      The reality is, I think, in the middle. The first generation we could say was raised online is basically right in between those two ages, 23. The other standard we could try to set is, who is the first generation who doesn’t remember the internet as exciting, just instead a daily part of life

    • Vigge93@lemmy.world
      83·
      2 years ago

      I think it’s fair to say that those in their late teens now are the first generation raised online. Sure, previous generations where raised alongside the internet, but the current generation is raised with a much larger presence of the internet.

      • Jon Von Basslake@lemmy.world
        91·
        2 years ago

        Nah, the zoomers are IMO the second generation to grow up with the internet. Sure it’s even more present for them and gen alpha, but I’d argue us millennials are the ones who first really grew up with the net. While we weren’t on the net all the time back then, we were the generation that grew up with the net as it became what it is today, for better or for worse.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          8·
          2 years ago

          Yeah I’m 28 and was consuming memes in middle school. I was not aware at any point where the default solution to a question was anything other than to look it up on the internet when you get home. I quit Facebook in high school.

            • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
              1·
              2 years ago

              But not a massive social media presence, not a massive streaming presence, little to no influencers. We didn’t grow up online like kids today, even if we played some Runescape on dial-up.

        • Obi@sopuli.xyz
          11·
          2 years ago

          But it certainly wasn’t the internet listed there at least not until the very tail-end of “growing up”.

  • Roundcat@kbin.social
    201·
    2 years ago

    Vine taught me you’re worthless unless you’re making someone else money.

  • xerazal@lemmy.zipEnglish
    192·
    2 years ago

    This is what neoliberalism does. It privatizes everything, including the individual. Everyone is a product. Everyone has a “brand”.

      • JungleJim@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        101·
        2 years ago

        Why’s everything gotta be about money? Good things happen without it. Rain falls, feeds a fruit tree, makes a fruit, I eat it, poop out the seeds, new fruit tree grows. Money doesn’t fall from trees, but I can’t eat money.

        The whole system is poorly prioritized to protect people’s things instead of people. Even then it does a poor job and only protects the things that belong to those with the most things. It’s not even about those people, just their wealth, because if somebody else got their wealth no one would care about them anymore.

        I don’t care about communists or capitalists or any ists you can name. To hell with Mao and Thatcher and Lenin and Reagan and Trump and Biden. Fuck em. My question is why can we always find money for war, and for rich people to do stupid shit, but never enough for health care, or food for hungry children, or anything like that. Fuck anybody okay with hungry babies.

    • Milk@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      115·
      2 years ago

      Right liberalism is about individual rights, economic freedom and freedom in general. Left-wing countries will give big tech more power cause they’ll have advantages over other companies and groups cause they have the money to pay for unnecessary laws that the left likes and they’ll be friends with the government. In countries even more on the left the problem will be the same but added that you won’t have any economic freedom and individual rights, small groups and companies will most likely not exist or die in the minute they’re created and you won’t be able to support them cause you basically doesn’t own your own money and the money will he spent on useless taxes that you supported. Your ideas give big tech power, you’re not the resistance but the perpetrator. Big techs have grown more and more as the world has become more leftist and you insist in not noticing the base of your mentality is helping big tech.

      • HumanBehaviorByBjork [any, undecided]@hexbear.netEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        Right wing countries do this. What do you think South Korea is? “Economic freedom,” is freedom commensurate with economic power, which means freedom for people with money, and “personal responsibility” for people without. The opposite of government regulation of business is corporate domination of government. You’re conflating these opposites to falsely align organized labor with “big business.” The entire right-libertarian political project is a smokescreen for the Kochs and their economic class to baffle morons into thinking the policies they want benefit the little guy.

        • Milk@lemmy.sdf.org
          1·
          2 years ago

          A company can only thrive above all others without good products is if it has support from the government or is a company owned by the government, right-wings want to reduce the State as much as possible while the left often wants to give the State more power. I don’t know how you think people having control of their money instead of giving it to the government for them to do whatever they want is some conspiracy by the corporations but you must note that the last thing a big company wants is that the people have choices and control over their own money, they want people to be babysitted by the government and that they’re their own choices. We act with the principle that anyone can be bad and the power can corrupt people so we work for the power to never be concentrated in the hand of one person or group.

            • Milk@lemmy.sdf.org
              1·
              2 years ago

              We already live in a true capitalist society but it’s fastly leaning to the the left. People were happier in the past and capitalism was full on its tracks and countries were more conservative.

              • HumanBehaviorByBjork [any, undecided]@hexbear.netEnglish
                1·
                2 years ago

                are you talking about the years of economic prosperity in North America after the New Deal, the end of the second world war, and the establishment of the United Nations? are those the small government policies that created “real capitalism”? or are you talking about the decline and destruction of global communism at the hands of the Reaganite social order that immediately preceded a half century of malaise and the destruction of the working class? this conversation cannot produce anything for you if you cannot come to the realization. don’t wince. open your eyes and turn your head to the mirror, stupid american. the corn syrup teeth rotting out of your head are the reward they gave you for winning.

        • Milk@lemmy.sdf.org
          1·
          2 years ago

          I really wish to know how people having total control over their lives is some evil capitalism conspiracy.