Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HTC864 t1_jdv2tlu wrote

There's a lot of dots being connected in this article without reason or proof. The author is simply throwing supposition at the reader and hoping they don't notice there's not much to back it up.

102

martusfine t1_jdv35qi wrote

Business Insider kinda sucks these days. Truthfully, the article reads like AI content punched up by the author.

36

Lemonio t1_jdva59t wrote

Lol the author is a CEO of a big tech PR agency, maybe he thinks if he can make their reputation worse he’ll get more business

21

MC68328 t1_jdwd2fw wrote

> there's not much to back it up

Have you tried using Google, Facebook, or Amazon?

16

okvrdz t1_jdw41aq wrote

I remember when best web practices were a thing. One of the sacred ones was to not use pop-ups. You could find them in tabloids and other low-level websites of the kind. Forward 15 years to today and now even the most prestigious websites do it. I’d say that’s a good example.

14

SpaceNerd422 t1_jdz8c4l wrote

Yyuuuppp. Came here to say this. I've been a web dev since before mobile responsive was a thing. I miss the "User comes first" outlook. Now, job applications scream for devs who understand good user experience. Then, when you start working on a project, there's some user experience concerns, but it all gets thrown out the window for the sake of ads, pop-ups, whatever. I've had so many heated discussions in meetings about the trashing of UX.

8

K----_ST t1_jdwfi1q wrote

You need proof that Amazon sells low quality shit? And that google has become cumbersome? and that Facebook force feeds you shit content that you don't want to see? lol wat? Are you going to tell me next that there's no proof of planned obsolesence or right to repair issues?

13

rddman t1_jdvf9ku wrote

Right, because we know that investors totally are not a major influence on big corporation's business direction and their primary motivation is money, not good products - just so long as they can get away with that.

5

garlicroastedpotato t1_jdy4fx7 wrote

I mean... they don't even give the real reason why a lot of these services can do this.... it's because a lot of their original content is just not being generated.

Like Google is "so good" right now that no one really cares about results beyond the first three. That gives 8-10 results that Google can now use for advertising space because no one was really going to care about those 8-10 results (although it does get absurd with travel stuff because now Google has its own booking agent).

Facebook doesn't actually have a lot of user generated content anymore between friends. Looking at the first ten friends that showup on my friend's list, one person hasn't posted in a year, eight people only seem to share stuff from groups, and one person is heavily posting for their multi level marketing business. Every time I log into Facebook I should see something new if I'm going to come back more frequently, so they fill in these gaps with advertised content, Instagram videos, and Marketplace listings.

They're slowed down and less functional because people use them differently now.

5

K----_ST t1_jdyap76 wrote

I think it's more than this, at least for FB. FB has always strived to manipulate feeds. Before it left chronological feeds just over a decade ago, they were busted for doing psychological experiments by manipulating user feeds without user consent. Of course that 'consent' came in the form of the ToS, which gradually evolved over so many years. Needless to say, FB has pissed off tons of users. Even through Covid and the election, a large chunk of people left and they left because they do'nt want the manipulation. Unfortunately, the newer generation is growing up with this as the new normal.

The article: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/02/facebook-sorry-secret-psychological-experiment-users

6

beef-o-lipso t1_jdv3zca wrote

Yes. It's called opinion. See the heading Discourse|Tech at the very top set off by blue, bold type? That tell you it's not news.

So don't expect the same rigor^1 from opinion pieces as you'd expect from content labeled News.

If it were presented as News, the demand for rigor is higher. Of course, good writing and good rhetoric says the author should back their claims, but there is less need to.

  1. I am not stating an opinion on the rigor or lack of rigor Business Insider adheres to.
−9

iPeculiarly t1_jdv92qf wrote

I'm not sure your logic follows

If it was presented as "news" it would be more rigorous?

Explain fox news. It's literally presented as news.

Also, fyi you are the one that called it news, OP called it an article

🤡

4

ShenmeNamaeSollich t1_jdvm9qq wrote

Fox News lawyers literally claimed “no reasonable person” should take Tucker Carlson as news, and won their case because the judge agreed his reputation as a lying exaggerating shithead should be enough for people to realize he’s a lying shithead. But that judge clearly overestimated the intelligence of Fox News’ audience.

Also, apparently legal precedent now says as long as you’re such a huge bloviating piece of shit that everyone “reasonable” knows you as such, you can get away with lying on air to millions of people, so they’re not going to stop - they now have a clear incentive to be even worse and keep pushing boundaries that appeal to the dumbest & least reasonable people out there.

−1

beef-o-lipso t1_jdv9y7e wrote

Based on down votes, it's not tech that's getting slower and stupider...

Jesus, some of you suck.

−5