# The internet isn’t dead in 2024—but it is one big churn (exploring history and causes)
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [December 19, 2024, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882 "2024-12-19T18:25:53Z")
**Posts on this page:** 11
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2024, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882/84 "2024-12-22T17:30:44Z")
> [@Voyager](#):
>
> Perhaps with so much out there, and so little space to review in the prozines, they don’t want to waste space on losers.
Also, per the link above, inasmuch as the book market has lost 2/3 of its value in 20 years, they probably feel (consciously or not) it best to promote said market instead of taking it down further.
---
### Author:  [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2024, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882/85 "2024-12-22T17:38:40Z")
> [@Jophiel](#):
>
> But, keeping more with the OP, I think the walling off of the internet into corporate chunks via discrete apps rather than connected browser sites played a big role in making it less of a place than it used to be.
Actually, early online was significantly walled gardens: remember America Online, Compuserve, etc?
---
### Author:  [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2024, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882/86 "2024-12-22T17:41:30Z")
Sure, but the OP seemed to be about the downward slide since “peak”. AOL, CompuServ, etc were minor players by the 2010-2015 era and walled “portals” weren’t much of a thing. Much like we weren’t all using the local BBS services of the 80s any longer either.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2024, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882/87 "2024-12-22T18:41:07Z")
> [@Voyager](#):
>
> I agree with this. Some people seem not to have an original thought in their heads. (JJ Abrams, I’m talking to you.)
Lol. I liked _Watchmen_, but nothing else he’s done has resonated. And he was a big part of ruining Star Wars, so there’s that too.
> [@](#):
>
> I stumbled on a video of someone watching 2001 for the first time, which was kind of fun. Then YouTube suggested about four more on exactly the same topic, and many more about watching other movies for the first time. Really…
Yes, the algorithm is very one-note these days: the last you played is the note you keep getting.
> [@](#):
>
> They do play CPE Bach. Of course what a radio station plays depends on what pieces orchestras record which depends on what they think will sell. While it might be cheaper to put out music these days, I don’t think it is cheaper to get a big enough orchestra together to do obscure symphonies.
Aren’t you assuming that the recordings are new–or do you know that? I mean, they could be from 1948 onward (when LPs first came out). I have a ton of classical on vinyl from the 1950s through 1970s that sounds great. There was a huge amount recorded in the 1980s for CDs after they came out in 1983. And of course a lot ever since.
Even if it’s newly recorded stuff, there are a countable but substantial number of symphonies all around the world that can make money off of recording. When I go to a concert, usually they have something new or obscure in there, even if most of it is the standard crowd-pleaser stuff. So I think the incentive system is in place for classical music variety to exist. A good thing, of course.
> [@](#):
>
> p. 129, in a positive review of a story by him “this, I think, is the first Sheckley story with people in it.”
> On p. 237, in a review of _Citizens in Space_ - At worst, the stupidity of Sheckleymen is so astonishing, it completely overshadows the marvels the author is expecting you to gawp at." I rather like Sheckley more than Knight does, but I read him in high school where it was all new and I liked the amusement value more than logic or characterization. I’d be nervous about rereading them.
I think it’s fascinating that you have all of these mags and can quote things chapter and verse. 🙂
As for whether his stories hold up, here’s one of my faves for you and the lurkers:
[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29509/29509-h/29509-h.htm](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29509/29509-h/29509-h.htm)
I’d call that almost perfect. I think he’s got a substantial number of first-rate stories, a lot that’s just entertaining, and definitely some misses. I’d say his biggest weakness comes in the ending of stories. Some of the misses are very good stories ruined by a bad ending. Another weakness is the novel format: in general, his novels are not that good overall. Probably _Options_ is his best, IMHO.
> [@](#):
>
> BTW, I agree with you about Dune. I read the first serial but couldn’t stomach any more. Richard Lupoff, as Ova Hamlet in Fantastic or Amazing, had a great parody spending a few pages about Lady Jessica and Duncan Idaho mentally analyzing the importance of an eye twitch or a burp or something.
Oh, that’s barely parody. I forget which book, but there’s one where all of these superhumans are using a different language for every type of thing they are trying to say. Like, c’mon, Herb.
I am curious whether they are going to try to film _Dune Messiah_, since it’s bad, it’s a downer, and perhaps the most important events (Paul becoming Space Hitler) have happened between the first and second novel with no explanation. We’ve all heard the rule, “Show, don’t tell”; Herbert takes it to the next level by not even telling!
> [@](#):
>
> As for remaking the movie, this was one case where the remake was far superior to the first movie. I could only imagine how confused someone not having read the book recently would be.
Lynch’s version is visually stunning and extremely, earnestly campy, so it works for me. The new version looks overly serious and dull, and I have no interest in exploring the story any more, so I haven’t seen it. I can totally see why someone would think it to be a better version of the book, however.
> [@](#):
>
> An exec who approves a new movie in a franchise or a movie based on a best seller or TV show can’t get in trouble if it bombs not too badly. Someone greenlighting something original can. Not just Hollywood - half or more of new musicals are based on existing properties. Original stuff like Hamilton or the Book of Mormon are still fairly rare.
Yeah, there is a lot of CYA at work. I feel as though risk averseness has increased across the economic system. A lot.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2024, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882/88 "2024-12-22T20:26:42Z")
> [@Toxylon](#):
>
> How does that work? All of old music was once new music, and no new music resists turning into old music. So if new music increases exponentially, old music cannot increase linearly.
Because old music - and old books - get filtered out. I’m reading the Biographical Dictionary of Film, and I suspect that most of the silent era movies from some of the older people in the book are no longer available. Even if they are, they are hard to get.
When I was an undergrad I used to visit the Brattle Bookstore in Boston. You can see the most recent proprietor on Antiques Roadshow. There I discovered novels by Winston Churchill. No, not that one, [this one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill_(novelist)). A well known novelist from the turn of the 20th century. I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some of his novels are online somewhere, but to your average person they are gone.
It might not be true anymore since we store new content on line, but we were talking about content from well before the internet, some from well before even recorded music. Back then people bought sheet music because that was the only way to remember what was played at a concert.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2024, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882/89 "2024-12-22T20:32:03Z")
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> I think it’s fascinating that you have all of these mags and can quote things chapter and verse.
That’s the reason I have my office filled with bookcases, and other rooms too. I don’t throw sf out or donate it when I’m done with it for this very reason.
It also demonstrates why there were more bad reviews then. Relatively fewer books published, relatively more magazines. The magazine in question was a spin off of F&SF and while good it did not last very long. (A later spinoff lasted even shorter.) But it had a book review column. Knight wrote for a relatively obscure magazine, I think, and also fanzines. I don’t think reviewers don’t do bad reviews today to protect the market, with smaller page counts for reviews why waste them on junk, unless it is best selling junk or junk done by a major name.
(The rest of your response I mostly agree with. Not ignoring you, just agreeing.)
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2024, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882/90 "2024-12-22T21:25:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#):
>
> Because old music - and old books - get filtered out.
An interesting and clever point!
I read somewhere a couple of years ago that some 65,000 (!) novels are published in English every year. How many of those sell at all? Not many. A smaller number is those that have any impact on pop culture (very few these days). A smaller number is those that, fairly or unfairly, are retained by the popular imagination for any length of time. I think that retention number might be the one to use for your “linear growth,” and I think it is a small one indeed, regardless of medium (music, novels, video games, etc.) and genre.
> [@](#):
>
> There I discovered novels by Winston Churchill. No, not that one, [this one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill_(novelist)). A well known novelist from the turn of the 20th century. I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some of his novels are online somewhere, but to your average person they are gone.
I’ve actually heard of him! Pertinent to that time period, I used to work in the mall of the basement of the Crown Point, IN, courthouse back in the 1980s, and we had a resale shop nextdoor, so I would regularly go in and look for stuff to buy or just to borrow, and I found a novel from around 1915 or so. It concerned a well-to-do man about town and his romantic interests, etc. Now, the author couldn’t (I suppose at that time) write about him bedding women and whatnot, so it was all innuendo and so on. Well, we get to the 1930s and have things like [Tropic of Cancer (novel) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Cancer_(novel)), and all of those books that had written about sex in a veiled sort of way were obsolete. The novel [From Here to Eternity (novel) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Here_to_Eternity_(novel)) from 1951 is shockingly sexual, involving military men going to prostitutes, including gay prostitutes (whereas the movie with Frank Sinatra and Donna Reed is shockingly anodyne and cleaned up!). So those older books truly have no cultural pertinence or interest today, and the fact that they were thrown out wholesale can’t be said to be much of a tragedy. OTOH, the best 19th century novels and poetry have aged well precisely because they are from another time and written in a style that, while obsolete, is excellent and engaging.
> [@](#):
>
> I don’t think reviewers don’t do bad reviews today to protect the market, with smaller page counts for reviews why waste them on junk, unless it is best selling junk or junk done by a major name.
What you say is probably a sufficient cause for not doing negative reviews. OTOH, there is a whole cottage industry on YouTube for trashing contemporary movies (there is a lot to trash there, however), but the supply/demand situation is totally different.
> [@](#):
>
> (The rest of your response I mostly agree with. Not ignoring you, just agreeing.)
No prob. I have found your comments edifying, thank you!
---
### Author:  [@Al128](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Al128)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2024, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882/91 "2024-12-22T22:25:04Z")
> [@Jophiel](#):
>
> And, ironically, I think the smartphone contributed greatly to the decay on the internet. When people were primarily accessing it from their computers, everything was more or less connected and you could organically bounce around and share information or things you found. These days, so much of it is siloed off into apps and exclusive. Maybe you can share content elsewhere but it’s a pain. Even places that used to just be “websites” like Reddit constantly nag you to use their app instead or try to lock you out of content until you use it.
That … but for other reasons.
Phone and tablet is “read-only" mode for me. Too Bothersome to type.
---
### Author:  [@Tzigone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tzigone)
#### Post date: [December 23, 2024, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882/92 "2024-12-23T15:43:25Z")
> [@Tusculan](#):
>
> I agree: I believe this may even be central to the problems you point out. I would submit (impopular opinion) that this is also due to the deeply entrenched expectation that everything on the Internet should be free or really cheap. That makes it hard to cover the actual costs of quality products.
I definitely agree with you. This is particularly noticeable with news, to me.
> [@](#):
>
> Right. And the corps went along with this for a long time under the rubric of, “Hey, the ads will pay for it–ads, baby!” but now are pissing and moaning and blocking ad blockers, and wow, talk about ingrained incompetence and a lack of vision on their part.
I’m the reverse - I blame the group, not the corps. It is the _users_ who refuse to pay a subscription fee and refuse to tolerate ads sufficient to pay the price of the content. They then justify stealing it because it should be free and ad-free and they don’t give a thought to actual compensation for the content creators or distributors. Fact is, people like free stuff, and would rather have free stuff and the internet makes it really easy to steal digital stuff rather than pay for it.
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [December 23, 2024, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882/93 "2024-12-23T16:39:11Z")
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> Right. And the corps went along with this for a long time under the rubric of, “Hey, the ads will pay for it–ads, baby!” but now are pissing and moaning and blocking ad blockers, and wow, talk about ingrained incompetence and a lack of vision on their part.
Well, yeah, because if you block the ads, the ads _don’t_ pay for it.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [December 23, 2024, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882/94 "2024-12-23T17:29:32Z")
To respond to the point about ads, the corps implemented the following system:
- It didn’t _require_ a subscription, which was always possible from the beginning and done by only a few pubs (e.g., NYT).
- It was a combination of highly irritating (popups, etc.), unusable (sometimes you can’t even read a page on your phone because of the ads), and dangerous (malware, etc.) to its users.
- Allowed ad blockers, at least at first (it was possible to access the sites with an ad blocker, and there was no command not to use one).
I think the above is just the facts, but correct me if I’m wrong. Then the whole debate about the ethics of ad blockers (which I don’t think we should have here) takes place in the context of those facts.
But there is another debate to be had, which is whether users could be expected _not_ to use ad blockers when such a system was presented to them. And I don’t such an expectation was warranted, and the implementation of the system above was incompetent (which is different from saying the corps were _stupid_; they were dealing with ever shifting technologies and social systems, and they were fumbling in the dark).
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-internet-isn-t-dead-in-2024-but-it-is-one-big-churn-exploring-history-and-causes/1011882.md?page=4)