|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
|
|
Have we considered that they don't know how to buy normal plane tickets?
|
On September 30 2017 08:54 Plansix wrote:
Have we considered that they don't know how to buy normal plane tickets?
They could just hire some random jackass civilian to book their flights and still save a fortune paying a man's salary solely to book tickets for idiots. Incompetence doesn't even scratch the surface.
|
2774 Posts
On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 03:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
As far as I know (and I honestly don't know much, because I don't use Facebook at all), but articles aren't even posted directly on Facebook. There are snippets from existing articles that will show up depending on how people link the content (and how the website works with Facebook's API), and users will share those links which will include those snippets. But people don't use Facebook as a news posting medium, they use it as a sharing tool for their own sites. Here is the verge article about it from a year ago. I don’t know how much has changed since then, but the systems that google and facebook set up made it harder for the end user to tell “does this website look professional.” Everyone had dealt with this problem when looking for a product review on google and every site looks weirdly similar. https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/6/13850230/fake-news-sites-google-search-facebook-instant-articles Okay, this article probably isn't talking about the things you are referring to. At least, I don't think so. Those are frameworks you can set up on your website to work better with mobile devices (less images, less javascript, etc.). News sites opt-in because it's cheaper than paying a web developer to figure it out themselves, and random conspiracy bloggers do the same for the same reason (I guess, or maybe Wordpress uses it automatically). Basically why all vBulletin forums look the same-ish, because they're using the same tool that comes with a fairly packaged design. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
What? That doesn't even make sense. That's not what development is about, open source is how we make progress. I don't see how templates and frameworks are malicious, it makes it easier for morons to make good looking websites but that's just a side effect anyhow. You'd be taking away all the good effects these have too.
You should probably read up on the importance of frameworks in web development. I honestly can't give two fucks if InfoWars is able to build a professional(ish) looking website because of Wordpress frameworks and plugins, and things alike. Judge by the content and not by the cover of the book.
|
On September 30 2017 09:04 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Okay, this article probably isn't talking about the things you are referring to. At least, I don't think so. Those are frameworks you can set up on your website to work better with mobile devices (less images, less javascript, etc.). News sites opt-in because it's cheaper than paying a web developer to figure it out themselves, and random conspiracy bloggers do the same for the same reason (I guess, or maybe Wordpress uses it automatically). Basically why all vBulletin forums look the same-ish, because they're using the same tool that comes with a fairly packaged design. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.” What? That doesn't even make sense. That's not what development is about, open source is how we make progress. I don't see how templates and frameworks are malicious, it makes it easier for morons to make good looking websites but that's just a side effect anyhow. You'd be taking away all the good effects these have too. You should probably read up on the importance of frameworks in web development. I honestly can't give two fucks if InfoWars is able to build a professional(ish) looking website because of Wordpress frameworks and plugins, and things alike. Judge by the content and not by the cover of the book.
I agree open source is good in general and I think a lot of good has come out of open source software. I just don't think there is enough thought put into all the bad things that can happen with it. Or people simply believe the good will outweigh the bad, so its fine as long as its a net gain. Especially since the internet is so dominated by a couple companies like Google and Facebook, so there isn't a lot of competition out there. Then it become even easier for these single, world wide solutions to be exploited. It is wonderful to make web development more accessible, but there might be some problems if that becomes a propaganda tool for hate speech and state actors.
And you might not give to fucks about Infowars, but the US congress does. That is why they are talking to companies like Facebook, twitter and google. Because the wild west of the internet is started to have a negative impact the US's ability to have informed, reasoned discussions during elections. And congress might decide that everyone needs to give a fuck about how their tools are used by Infowars.
And I don't need to read up on web development, I understand the problems. I just don't give a shit how much harder it makes programmers jobs. People make my job harder and change the rules all the time. You get used to it.
|
|
|
On September 30 2017 09:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 09:04 Nixer wrote:On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Okay, this article probably isn't talking about the things you are referring to. At least, I don't think so.
Those are frameworks you can set up on your website to work better with mobile devices (less images, less javascript, etc.). News sites opt-in because it's cheaper than paying a web developer to figure it out themselves, and random conspiracy bloggers do the same for the same reason (I guess, or maybe Wordpress uses it automatically).
Basically why all vBulletin forums look the same-ish, because they're using the same tool that comes with a fairly packaged design. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.” What? That doesn't even make sense. That's not what development is about, open source is how we make progress. I don't see how templates and frameworks are malicious, it makes it easier for morons to make good looking websites but that's just a side effect anyhow. You'd be taking away all the good effects these have too. You should probably read up on the importance of frameworks in web development. I honestly can't give two fucks if InfoWars is able to build a professional(ish) looking website because of Wordpress frameworks and plugins, and things alike. Judge by the content and not by the cover of the book. I agree open source is good in general and I think a lot of good has come out of open source software. I just don't think there is enough thought put into all the bad things that can happen with it. Or people simply believe the good will outweigh the bad, so its fine as long as its a net gain. Especially since the internet is so dominated by a couple companies like Google and Facebook, so there isn't a lot of competition out there. Then it become even easier for these single, world wide solutions to be exploited. It is wonderful to make web development more accessible, but there might be some problems if that becomes a propaganda tool for hate speech and state actors. And you might not give to fucks about Infowars, but the US congress does. That is why they are talking to companies like Facebook, twitter and google. Because the wild west of the internet is started to have a negative impact the US's ability to have informed, reasoned discussions during elections. And congress might decide that everyone needs to give a fuck about how their tools are used by Infowars. And I don't need to read up on web development, I understand the problems. I just don't give a shit how much harder it makes programmers jobs. People make my job harder and change the rules all the time. You get used to it.
There might be interesting moral and liability quandaries to making things open source, but I think you're choosing a pretty poor battleground for it. The idea that people shouldn't make professional-looking templates publicly available because someone might use them to look professional while doing bad stuff doesn't sound like a winner to me. If Info Wars has the clout to get a WH Press Pass, I think they can afford to hire some decent web designers, so I don't think this is gonna be a very effective gatekeeper on legitimate news sources.
|
|
|
The response to Puerto Rico has been pretty appalling. I know if they had electoral votes there's no way they would be so ignored.
|
On September 30 2017 10:03 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 09:20 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 09:04 Nixer wrote:On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.” What? That doesn't even make sense. That's not what development is about, open source is how we make progress. I don't see how templates and frameworks are malicious, it makes it easier for morons to make good looking websites but that's just a side effect anyhow. You'd be taking away all the good effects these have too. You should probably read up on the importance of frameworks in web development. I honestly can't give two fucks if InfoWars is able to build a professional(ish) looking website because of Wordpress frameworks and plugins, and things alike. Judge by the content and not by the cover of the book. I agree open source is good in general and I think a lot of good has come out of open source software. I just don't think there is enough thought put into all the bad things that can happen with it. Or people simply believe the good will outweigh the bad, so its fine as long as its a net gain. Especially since the internet is so dominated by a couple companies like Google and Facebook, so there isn't a lot of competition out there. Then it become even easier for these single, world wide solutions to be exploited. It is wonderful to make web development more accessible, but there might be some problems if that becomes a propaganda tool for hate speech and state actors. And you might not give to fucks about Infowars, but the US congress does. That is why they are talking to companies like Facebook, twitter and google. Because the wild west of the internet is started to have a negative impact the US's ability to have informed, reasoned discussions during elections. And congress might decide that everyone needs to give a fuck about how their tools are used by Infowars. And I don't need to read up on web development, I understand the problems. I just don't give a shit how much harder it makes programmers jobs. People make my job harder and change the rules all the time. You get used to it. There might be interesting moral and liability quandaries to making things open source, but I think you're choosing a pretty poor battleground for it. The idea that people shouldn't make professional-looking templates publicly available because someone might use them to look professional while doing bad stuff doesn't sound like a winner to me. If Info Wars has the clout to get a WH Press Pass, I think they can afford to hire some decent web designers, so I don't think this is gonna be a very effective gatekeeper on legitimate news sources.
At no point during this discussion did I call for the end of AMP. I asked for it to be better designed and more thoughtfully use across the internet. I used Infowars as an example because it is well known. I did not say it was the cure to the problem, only one of many flaws that people have found in the way google and facebook has homogenized much of the internet due to the growing influence. One that some people within the tech industry have said should be addressed.
|
United States24740 Posts
On September 30 2017 10:09 Nevuk wrote:
The response to Puerto Rico has been pretty appalling. I know if they had electoral votes there's no way they would be so ignored.
I think the least surprising thing of all of this is the most noteworthy action so far has been to publicly pat themselves on the back for how good of a job they did responding to the disaster and providing support.
In my book, when people are dying, you don't brag about how well you are mitigating it.
|
On September 30 2017 10:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 10:03 ChristianS wrote:On September 30 2017 09:20 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 09:04 Nixer wrote:On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.” What? That doesn't even make sense. That's not what development is about, open source is how we make progress. I don't see how templates and frameworks are malicious, it makes it easier for morons to make good looking websites but that's just a side effect anyhow. You'd be taking away all the good effects these have too. You should probably read up on the importance of frameworks in web development. I honestly can't give two fucks if InfoWars is able to build a professional(ish) looking website because of Wordpress frameworks and plugins, and things alike. Judge by the content and not by the cover of the book. I agree open source is good in general and I think a lot of good has come out of open source software. I just don't think there is enough thought put into all the bad things that can happen with it. Or people simply believe the good will outweigh the bad, so its fine as long as its a net gain. Especially since the internet is so dominated by a couple companies like Google and Facebook, so there isn't a lot of competition out there. Then it become even easier for these single, world wide solutions to be exploited. It is wonderful to make web development more accessible, but there might be some problems if that becomes a propaganda tool for hate speech and state actors. And you might not give to fucks about Infowars, but the US congress does. That is why they are talking to companies like Facebook, twitter and google. Because the wild west of the internet is started to have a negative impact the US's ability to have informed, reasoned discussions during elections. And congress might decide that everyone needs to give a fuck about how their tools are used by Infowars. And I don't need to read up on web development, I understand the problems. I just don't give a shit how much harder it makes programmers jobs. People make my job harder and change the rules all the time. You get used to it. There might be interesting moral and liability quandaries to making things open source, but I think you're choosing a pretty poor battleground for it. The idea that people shouldn't make professional-looking templates publicly available because someone might use them to look professional while doing bad stuff doesn't sound like a winner to me. If Info Wars has the clout to get a WH Press Pass, I think they can afford to hire some decent web designers, so I don't think this is gonna be a very effective gatekeeper on legitimate news sources. At no point during this discussion did I call for the end of AMP. I asked for it to be better designed and more thoughtfully used. I used Infowars as an example because it is well known. I did not say it was the cure to the problem, only one of many flaws that people have found in the way google and facebook has homogenized much of the internet due to the growing influence. One that some people within the tech industry have said should be addressed.
Yes. It should be more thoughtfully used.
Like, when you have a million dollar organization like a major Newspaper business, maybe they should apply more thought before going for the cheapest option that basically spits out canned designs.
It feels like if the NYT used Geocities as their official website, you would be blaming the tech industry for it looking like a conspiracy site.
|
On September 30 2017 10:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 10:16 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 10:03 ChristianS wrote:On September 30 2017 09:20 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 09:04 Nixer wrote:On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.” What? That doesn't even make sense. That's not what development is about, open source is how we make progress. I don't see how templates and frameworks are malicious, it makes it easier for morons to make good looking websites but that's just a side effect anyhow. You'd be taking away all the good effects these have too. You should probably read up on the importance of frameworks in web development. I honestly can't give two fucks if InfoWars is able to build a professional(ish) looking website because of Wordpress frameworks and plugins, and things alike. Judge by the content and not by the cover of the book. I agree open source is good in general and I think a lot of good has come out of open source software. I just don't think there is enough thought put into all the bad things that can happen with it. Or people simply believe the good will outweigh the bad, so its fine as long as its a net gain. Especially since the internet is so dominated by a couple companies like Google and Facebook, so there isn't a lot of competition out there. Then it become even easier for these single, world wide solutions to be exploited. It is wonderful to make web development more accessible, but there might be some problems if that becomes a propaganda tool for hate speech and state actors. And you might not give to fucks about Infowars, but the US congress does. That is why they are talking to companies like Facebook, twitter and google. Because the wild west of the internet is started to have a negative impact the US's ability to have informed, reasoned discussions during elections. And congress might decide that everyone needs to give a fuck about how their tools are used by Infowars. And I don't need to read up on web development, I understand the problems. I just don't give a shit how much harder it makes programmers jobs. People make my job harder and change the rules all the time. You get used to it. There might be interesting moral and liability quandaries to making things open source, but I think you're choosing a pretty poor battleground for it. The idea that people shouldn't make professional-looking templates publicly available because someone might use them to look professional while doing bad stuff doesn't sound like a winner to me. If Info Wars has the clout to get a WH Press Pass, I think they can afford to hire some decent web designers, so I don't think this is gonna be a very effective gatekeeper on legitimate news sources. At no point during this discussion did I call for the end of AMP. I asked for it to be better designed and more thoughtfully used. I used Infowars as an example because it is well known. I did not say it was the cure to the problem, only one of many flaws that people have found in the way google and facebook has homogenized much of the internet due to the growing influence. One that some people within the tech industry have said should be addressed. Yes. It should be more thoughtfully used. Like, when you have a million dollar organization like a major Newspaper business, maybe they should apply more thought before going for the cheapest option that basically spits out canned designs. It feels like if the NYT used Geocities as their official website, you would be blaming the tech industry for it looking like a conspiracy site.
You act like the NYT uses it because they don't want to develop a mobile front end. They have one. They use AMP because google pushes it to maximize their ability to sell ads and make money. AMP exists to make google money and make websites load on my phone fast.
|
On September 30 2017 10:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 10:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 10:16 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 10:03 ChristianS wrote:On September 30 2017 09:20 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 09:04 Nixer wrote:On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.” What? That doesn't even make sense. That's not what development is about, open source is how we make progress. I don't see how templates and frameworks are malicious, it makes it easier for morons to make good looking websites but that's just a side effect anyhow. You'd be taking away all the good effects these have too. You should probably read up on the importance of frameworks in web development. I honestly can't give two fucks if InfoWars is able to build a professional(ish) looking website because of Wordpress frameworks and plugins, and things alike. Judge by the content and not by the cover of the book. I agree open source is good in general and I think a lot of good has come out of open source software. I just don't think there is enough thought put into all the bad things that can happen with it. Or people simply believe the good will outweigh the bad, so its fine as long as its a net gain. Especially since the internet is so dominated by a couple companies like Google and Facebook, so there isn't a lot of competition out there. Then it become even easier for these single, world wide solutions to be exploited. It is wonderful to make web development more accessible, but there might be some problems if that becomes a propaganda tool for hate speech and state actors. And you might not give to fucks about Infowars, but the US congress does. That is why they are talking to companies like Facebook, twitter and google. Because the wild west of the internet is started to have a negative impact the US's ability to have informed, reasoned discussions during elections. And congress might decide that everyone needs to give a fuck about how their tools are used by Infowars. And I don't need to read up on web development, I understand the problems. I just don't give a shit how much harder it makes programmers jobs. People make my job harder and change the rules all the time. You get used to it. There might be interesting moral and liability quandaries to making things open source, but I think you're choosing a pretty poor battleground for it. The idea that people shouldn't make professional-looking templates publicly available because someone might use them to look professional while doing bad stuff doesn't sound like a winner to me. If Info Wars has the clout to get a WH Press Pass, I think they can afford to hire some decent web designers, so I don't think this is gonna be a very effective gatekeeper on legitimate news sources. At no point during this discussion did I call for the end of AMP. I asked for it to be better designed and more thoughtfully used. I used Infowars as an example because it is well known. I did not say it was the cure to the problem, only one of many flaws that people have found in the way google and facebook has homogenized much of the internet due to the growing influence. One that some people within the tech industry have said should be addressed. Yes. It should be more thoughtfully used. Like, when you have a million dollar organization like a major Newspaper business, maybe they should apply more thought before going for the cheapest option that basically spits out canned designs. It feels like if the NYT used Geocities as their official website, you would be blaming the tech industry for it looking like a conspiracy site. You act like the NYT uses it because they don't want to develop a mobile front end. They have one. They use AMP because google pushes it to maximize their ability to sell ads and make money. AMP exists to make google money and make websites load on my phone fast.
You realize they can use AMP and still customize it, right? That's the nature of Open Source frameworks. And even if they didn't want to commit to that work, they could make the business decision to wait until those were built by other people.
Not to mention that some sites don't even see $ improvements from the changes, so if they jumped straight onto the project for monetary reasons, someone dun fucked up.
|
On September 30 2017 10:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 10:34 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 10:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 10:16 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 10:03 ChristianS wrote:On September 30 2017 09:20 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 09:04 Nixer wrote:On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos.
So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.” What? That doesn't even make sense. That's not what development is about, open source is how we make progress. I don't see how templates and frameworks are malicious, it makes it easier for morons to make good looking websites but that's just a side effect anyhow. You'd be taking away all the good effects these have too. You should probably read up on the importance of frameworks in web development. I honestly can't give two fucks if InfoWars is able to build a professional(ish) looking website because of Wordpress frameworks and plugins, and things alike. Judge by the content and not by the cover of the book. I agree open source is good in general and I think a lot of good has come out of open source software. I just don't think there is enough thought put into all the bad things that can happen with it. Or people simply believe the good will outweigh the bad, so its fine as long as its a net gain. Especially since the internet is so dominated by a couple companies like Google and Facebook, so there isn't a lot of competition out there. Then it become even easier for these single, world wide solutions to be exploited. It is wonderful to make web development more accessible, but there might be some problems if that becomes a propaganda tool for hate speech and state actors. And you might not give to fucks about Infowars, but the US congress does. That is why they are talking to companies like Facebook, twitter and google. Because the wild west of the internet is started to have a negative impact the US's ability to have informed, reasoned discussions during elections. And congress might decide that everyone needs to give a fuck about how their tools are used by Infowars. And I don't need to read up on web development, I understand the problems. I just don't give a shit how much harder it makes programmers jobs. People make my job harder and change the rules all the time. You get used to it. There might be interesting moral and liability quandaries to making things open source, but I think you're choosing a pretty poor battleground for it. The idea that people shouldn't make professional-looking templates publicly available because someone might use them to look professional while doing bad stuff doesn't sound like a winner to me. If Info Wars has the clout to get a WH Press Pass, I think they can afford to hire some decent web designers, so I don't think this is gonna be a very effective gatekeeper on legitimate news sources. At no point during this discussion did I call for the end of AMP. I asked for it to be better designed and more thoughtfully used. I used Infowars as an example because it is well known. I did not say it was the cure to the problem, only one of many flaws that people have found in the way google and facebook has homogenized much of the internet due to the growing influence. One that some people within the tech industry have said should be addressed. Yes. It should be more thoughtfully used. Like, when you have a million dollar organization like a major Newspaper business, maybe they should apply more thought before going for the cheapest option that basically spits out canned designs. It feels like if the NYT used Geocities as their official website, you would be blaming the tech industry for it looking like a conspiracy site. You act like the NYT uses it because they don't want to develop a mobile front end. They have one. They use AMP because google pushes it to maximize their ability to sell ads and make money. AMP exists to make google money and make websites load on my phone fast. You realize they can use AMP and still customize it, right? That's the nature of Open Source frameworks. And even if they didn't want to commit to that work, they could make the business decision to wait until those were built by other people. Not to mention that some sites don't even see $ improvements from the changes, so if they jumped straight onto the project for monetary reasons, someone dun fucked up.
I don't understand what you are arguing at this point. I cited an article about googles software and it had flaws. You already said Google could make the software better. I agreed and think they should. I don't know why you keep bring up the NYT and that companies could spend money to make their websites different. That has nothing to do with free thoughts blog looking the same as an Atlantic article on my Iphone due to google. That is all google.
|
On September 30 2017 11:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 10:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 10:34 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 10:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 10:16 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 10:03 ChristianS wrote:On September 30 2017 09:20 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 09:04 Nixer wrote:On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.” What? That doesn't even make sense. That's not what development is about, open source is how we make progress. I don't see how templates and frameworks are malicious, it makes it easier for morons to make good looking websites but that's just a side effect anyhow. You'd be taking away all the good effects these have too. You should probably read up on the importance of frameworks in web development. I honestly can't give two fucks if InfoWars is able to build a professional(ish) looking website because of Wordpress frameworks and plugins, and things alike. Judge by the content and not by the cover of the book. I agree open source is good in general and I think a lot of good has come out of open source software. I just don't think there is enough thought put into all the bad things that can happen with it. Or people simply believe the good will outweigh the bad, so its fine as long as its a net gain. Especially since the internet is so dominated by a couple companies like Google and Facebook, so there isn't a lot of competition out there. Then it become even easier for these single, world wide solutions to be exploited. It is wonderful to make web development more accessible, but there might be some problems if that becomes a propaganda tool for hate speech and state actors. And you might not give to fucks about Infowars, but the US congress does. That is why they are talking to companies like Facebook, twitter and google. Because the wild west of the internet is started to have a negative impact the US's ability to have informed, reasoned discussions during elections. And congress might decide that everyone needs to give a fuck about how their tools are used by Infowars. And I don't need to read up on web development, I understand the problems. I just don't give a shit how much harder it makes programmers jobs. People make my job harder and change the rules all the time. You get used to it. There might be interesting moral and liability quandaries to making things open source, but I think you're choosing a pretty poor battleground for it. The idea that people shouldn't make professional-looking templates publicly available because someone might use them to look professional while doing bad stuff doesn't sound like a winner to me. If Info Wars has the clout to get a WH Press Pass, I think they can afford to hire some decent web designers, so I don't think this is gonna be a very effective gatekeeper on legitimate news sources. At no point during this discussion did I call for the end of AMP. I asked for it to be better designed and more thoughtfully used. I used Infowars as an example because it is well known. I did not say it was the cure to the problem, only one of many flaws that people have found in the way google and facebook has homogenized much of the internet due to the growing influence. One that some people within the tech industry have said should be addressed. Yes. It should be more thoughtfully used. Like, when you have a million dollar organization like a major Newspaper business, maybe they should apply more thought before going for the cheapest option that basically spits out canned designs. It feels like if the NYT used Geocities as their official website, you would be blaming the tech industry for it looking like a conspiracy site. You act like the NYT uses it because they don't want to develop a mobile front end. They have one. They use AMP because google pushes it to maximize their ability to sell ads and make money. AMP exists to make google money and make websites load on my phone fast. You realize they can use AMP and still customize it, right? That's the nature of Open Source frameworks. And even if they didn't want to commit to that work, they could make the business decision to wait until those were built by other people. Not to mention that some sites don't even see $ improvements from the changes, so if they jumped straight onto the project for monetary reasons, someone dun fucked up. I don't understand what you are arguing at this point. I cited an article about googles software and it had flaws. You already said Google could make the software better. I agreed and think they should. I don't know why you keep bring up the NYT and that companies could spend money to make their websites different. That has nothing to do with free thoughts blog looking the same as an Atlantic article on my Iphone due to google. That is all google.
What exactly is your suggestion for how Google should make those two things look different?
|
On September 30 2017 11:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 10:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 10:34 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 10:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 10:16 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 10:03 ChristianS wrote:On September 30 2017 09:20 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 09:04 Nixer wrote:On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.” What? That doesn't even make sense. That's not what development is about, open source is how we make progress. I don't see how templates and frameworks are malicious, it makes it easier for morons to make good looking websites but that's just a side effect anyhow. You'd be taking away all the good effects these have too. You should probably read up on the importance of frameworks in web development. I honestly can't give two fucks if InfoWars is able to build a professional(ish) looking website because of Wordpress frameworks and plugins, and things alike. Judge by the content and not by the cover of the book. I agree open source is good in general and I think a lot of good has come out of open source software. I just don't think there is enough thought put into all the bad things that can happen with it. Or people simply believe the good will outweigh the bad, so its fine as long as its a net gain. Especially since the internet is so dominated by a couple companies like Google and Facebook, so there isn't a lot of competition out there. Then it become even easier for these single, world wide solutions to be exploited. It is wonderful to make web development more accessible, but there might be some problems if that becomes a propaganda tool for hate speech and state actors. And you might not give to fucks about Infowars, but the US congress does. That is why they are talking to companies like Facebook, twitter and google. Because the wild west of the internet is started to have a negative impact the US's ability to have informed, reasoned discussions during elections. And congress might decide that everyone needs to give a fuck about how their tools are used by Infowars. And I don't need to read up on web development, I understand the problems. I just don't give a shit how much harder it makes programmers jobs. People make my job harder and change the rules all the time. You get used to it. There might be interesting moral and liability quandaries to making things open source, but I think you're choosing a pretty poor battleground for it. The idea that people shouldn't make professional-looking templates publicly available because someone might use them to look professional while doing bad stuff doesn't sound like a winner to me. If Info Wars has the clout to get a WH Press Pass, I think they can afford to hire some decent web designers, so I don't think this is gonna be a very effective gatekeeper on legitimate news sources. At no point during this discussion did I call for the end of AMP. I asked for it to be better designed and more thoughtfully used. I used Infowars as an example because it is well known. I did not say it was the cure to the problem, only one of many flaws that people have found in the way google and facebook has homogenized much of the internet due to the growing influence. One that some people within the tech industry have said should be addressed. Yes. It should be more thoughtfully used. Like, when you have a million dollar organization like a major Newspaper business, maybe they should apply more thought before going for the cheapest option that basically spits out canned designs. It feels like if the NYT used Geocities as their official website, you would be blaming the tech industry for it looking like a conspiracy site. You act like the NYT uses it because they don't want to develop a mobile front end. They have one. They use AMP because google pushes it to maximize their ability to sell ads and make money. AMP exists to make google money and make websites load on my phone fast. You realize they can use AMP and still customize it, right? That's the nature of Open Source frameworks. And even if they didn't want to commit to that work, they could make the business decision to wait until those were built by other people. Not to mention that some sites don't even see $ improvements from the changes, so if they jumped straight onto the project for monetary reasons, someone dun fucked up. I don't understand what you are arguing at this point. I cited an article about googles software and it had flaws. You already said Google could make the software better. I agreed and think they should. I don't know why you keep bring up the NYT and that companies could spend money to make their websites different. That has nothing to do with free thoughts blog looking the same as an Atlantic article on my Iphone due to google. That is all google.
If you don't understand, then there's really no point discussing anything tech with you.
It's Google's fault that AMP, in its basic released form, did not have the customization features that a lot of sites might have wanted.
It's entirely Atlantic's fault that their professional articles looks the same as a cheap blog.
Like, do you think a Google marketing team walked into Atlantic's office, offered to flip a switch to magically make their website use AMP standards? It's at least a several month process for a business like Atlantic to even consider changes, approve them, and then implement them. And, if at the end of that, they have a mobile website that looks like almost everyone else's, that's the decision they made.
|
AMP is still advantageous for newspapers, publishers and the user. The framework limits resources and web technologies that can be used by default. It's standardized, streamlined and takes advantage of lazy loading and rendering methods. Not to mention that AMP websites are also heavily cached on Google Cloud servers which has a big and better reach than most networks.
For example ads are generally less obnoxious, pages load faster which is really important for content publishers as a difference of seconds actually has quite the difference in amount of sessions and session time. All around it can be good for user experience too.
However like any frameworks it has it limitations, so it's up to the developers of a website to understand when to use it and when not to use it. I haven't been particularly annoyed by it. Of course AMP effectively results in a significant SEO boost as Google values speed and good mobile user experiences. Perhaps too much, perhaps not. However you can't ignore everything else regarding SEO either, it's not that simple and straightforward.
-- Now as WolfintheSheep said AMP is relatively new anyway, neither is it Google's responsibility to ensure it's a good idea to use it at all times. That's up to you, you're the one who has to weigh the pros and cons.
(I mean AMP itself shouldn't boost your search ranking, it's the effect it has and this effect can be produced by developing your own optimized mobile frameworks or expanding on something else. AMP is just another building block)
I think there's just a bit of a misunderstanding with how web development works. Let me know if you want any explanations.
|
Its just new technology. Once people adapt they'll stop thinking infowars is reputable, probably. When pamphlets came put they basically killed politics as well, and some anti pamphlet screeds sound ridiculous now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
