Good read. I too askew smartphones in favor of the desktop for my computinmg needs.
I never saw this video, but your account reminds me of those bundled with Windows 95 and 98, such as the tiny trailer for Caton-Jones' middling filmic adaptation of "Rob Roy." Dell's support for their older models is unparalleled, esp. compared to that of derelict manufacturers like HP.
I'm almost as partial to Dells as to Lenovos. For XMas, Annusya bought me a refurbished Optiplex 7010 that runs beautifully (now that FreBSD is installed thereto), and after 18 years, I still use a Dimension 4500S on which OpenBSD is installed for storage, and as an occasional server.
Incidentally, the Internet would be a better place if smartphones primarily accessed services via a protocol designed and optimized solely for mobile devices.
Lenovo and HP, I would say, are also very fine PC vendors, though I especially like Dell simply because it happened that I ended up using one of their PCs (the Dimension 8400) for most of the 2000s. (And running some non-Windows OS on those old Dell models, when Windows is what they originally shipped with? How could you, Robert...)
Very late in commenting on this, but I just wanted to say that I loved this article. I too still reject the idea of smartphones being the future, since they are inherently inferior and restrictive devices compared to PCs. Ever since smartphones became dominant, it feels as if we are no longer moving forth into a bold future, but instead regressing.
Your response is more thorough and maturely-written than I ever expected or deserved. I am grateful you are offering such exhaustive expertise, and I’m happy to see the criticisms are legitimate and objective, as I am frequently guilty of violating in my own opinions.
I read the article alongside writing my thoughts in a text document. After I publish my year-end review article, I will take action to improve my 4chan article and cite you as a co-author. https://frogesay.neocities.org/temp/2020-12-26-4chan-criticisms-live-blog.txt
Thanks, Froge. I read through your notes, and have just a few comments: On line 28 ("He criticises calling Gamergate a harrassment campaign..."), I should probably make it more clear that I'm not questioning whether it was an online harassment campaign, but rather criticizing the supposed gravity of "online harassment" in general.
Line 36 ("NEET: In response to a vague notion of bias..."): My issue with the NYT is less left vs. right than authoritarian vs. libertarian, with it and the other mainstream outlets I mentioned definitely being more authoritarian (and pro-establishment). They've also written very negative articles about 4chan/8chan/imageboards, which strikes me as being opposed to the freedom and free speech that those sites embody.
Line 67: "If we define 'cultural output' as pure influence on the rest of the Internet": I suppose it's a matter of our differing definitions -- I was implicitly using one that limited "cultural output" only to memes/OC that originated on 4chan, and didn't include influence exerted outside the site. In that case, I wouldn't say what's coming out today can match the creative quality and quantity of the mid-2000s.
You also missed me calling 8chan an "image booru". Seriously, what was I thinking?
Excellent rebuttal. I admit I only skimmed the original article because it came off to me as the ramblings of a confused tumblrina, but I am in agreeance with the majority of your points here. While I do agree with you about the decline in creativity on 4chan, I would hesitate to label /pol/'s users as NORPs; everything that modern /pol/ stands for is the polar opposite of what the entire media/education propaganda
complex has been pushing on everyone for 75 years and counting. I agree with you 100% about normalfag or NORP being better than the friendly and lame 'normie' word. So far as I remember it, GamerGate was the point that showed that 4chan was slowly becoming controlled opposition. I remember being banned from 4chan just for speaking out against the censorship going on back then.
Thanks, koshka, but I would not truly consider this a rebuttal of Froge's article; I would characterize it more like a further exploration of some of the topics raised in the original, containing both praise, criticism, and neutral comments. The closest it ever gets to a rebuttal is in the entry for Cripplechan, but that isn't the whole piece.
I would also urge you to read through the original article, as it's a good piece, even if at times it clearly veers from being neutral. Also, you should know that when I use the label "NORP", I am describing more than just the person's politics; thus somebody might be very much against the mainstream in terms of their political beliefs, but still have otherwise "normal" habits, tastes, attitudes, goals, etc.
Damn, you're a hard worker, Mr. Froge. I look forward to reading it.
Excellent analysis. I have not heard of this quotation before, but it is indeed a great one. Very disheartening that so few people hold this belief in this modern age of censorship and cancellation.
A generation ago (during the 1990s), it was considered a good thing that the Internet would increase the amount of speech in the world, and permit everybody to broadcast their beliefs to a potentially global audience. It is very sad that attitudes have changed so quickly, and people say now that there is "too much" freedom and free speech in cyberspace! If anything, freedom has been decreasing, not increasing.
This is a terrific little conspectus on the CDA, the first of a few such quashed acts that never should've existed. I'm convinced that technology will eventually render broader censorship obsolescent, but until people eschew bloated, censorial corporate networks for superior independent alternatives, they elect to be cattle rather than people.
Nota bene: that obiter dictum by Dalzell (a constructionist to the bone), is yet more evidence substantiating my longheld conviction that Silents appreciated the quiddity, functions and potential of home computing and the Internet with far more acuity than Boomers, who've never been as comfortable with technology produced after the '70s as the preceding and succeeding generations...
Of all the abysmal legislative articles signed by Clinton, this is easily among the five worst. He's rightly overshadowed by Bush and Obama, who were far worse, but as might be expected from the Obamamaniacs and Magapedes who succeeded them, Clintonistas just pretended he never had anything to do with it. The supreme hypocrisy required to sign anti-porn bills while consorting with Jeffrey Epstein is staggering.
A lot of the good values that used to be accepted as common sense on the Internet in the 90s have sadly been eroded since the normiefication of the Internet ran its course. People used to also praise the fact that the Internet was a decentralised free-for-all, and now they embrace everything being in the hands of a few websites/companies.
It also was common sense to never reveal any personal information on the Internet, while now you can't even participate on many websites without doxxing yourself somehow. One could argue that the latter happened because the powers that be knew that it would decrease free speech.
I will always stick to the old values of the Internet, because I still feel, to some degree, that it's separate from the real world, with its own unique culture and customs which should be respected. Also: "Of all the abysmal legislative articles signed by Clinton, this is easily among the five worst." Thanks for reminding me that the DMCA still exists, Robert...
Completely agreed. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," as they say. The Internet was meant to be an almost magical place that was completely separate from the real world, not a toxic extension of the real world.
koshka: the personal solution is simple: don't do it. Anonymize all accounts on social media and other corporate sites, regard all of them as potentially disposable and assiduously back up all of your data. Encourage others to do likewise; experience will often confirm your counsel.
lolwut: the trouble with the DMCA isn't its purported intention, but rather that it's so readily abused by design, as in antinomy of Fair Use when some elite, cosseted cunt's feefees are contused. As a copyright maven, I abominate that popular conflation of copyright as it's intended and how it's abused by corporations.
koshka: I agree entirely, but the Internet's greater transformation into that extension was inevitable. Its popularization facilitates far too much, commercial and otherwise. Even if that vast, demotic dreck can't be turned back, it can be shunned and diminished...after all, every major social media site is shrinking, and not only for managerial abuse and ineptitude...
A tag can only be a single word, and can only contain letters and numbers.
Select the tags you would like to remove:
You are going to block this site. This will do the following:
Are you sure you want to do this?