zlacker

>>lopesp+(OP)
The elephant in the room is the size distribution of "other people's kingdoms". Having oversized kingdoms and overbearing kings is not a god-given parameter, its down to regulation, political and economic choices. Its not for nothing that the current digital world has been called neo-feudal.

The real solution is to force these kingdoms to build permanently open gates and roadways that connect the land, increase all around traffic and opportunity.

Only when people turn from digital vassals to digital citizens will we emerge from the middle ages we are currently in. In this sense the most important development in the online world is still ahead if us.

>>openri+El1
When it comes to the "internet" - you are 30 years late to apply such forces. Everything is now DRMed, closed garden proprietary bs - there is no legal framework, nor will to reverse that and we are going to pay.

And this is not cynic talking ...

>>neon_m+xF1
The web is still open.

Wide open.

For anything to build.

More users online than ever, and able to get their attention too.

>>j45+eR1
It's functionally shackled by the terms Google lays out for it.

>>treyd+l62
Anecdotal: My hobby tech blog went from 4k hits/ day (all cold Google search traffic) w/ top Google searches in 2019 to about 60 a day today. I still publish at the same tempo and I believe I improved the quality of the blog, but I suspect these days the search engine traffic pushes eyeballs to the walled garden "social media" apps.

>>runamu+282
You are no "authoritative" voice. What do you think was all the rage against misinformation about? To give legacy media and advertising customers an edge. All platforms with user voices and ratings were destroyed too. User opinions are bad for marketing.

If any search term is in any way part of any news cycle, you will get the crappiest search results you could imagine and any real content like a blog fitting the topic will be far down the line.