[vpfaulkner]

I honestly wonder how much the typical user actually shares the concerns brought up here and in other hostile web arguments. Most people I know care much less than the Hacker News community about privacy, bloated web sites, web advertisements, etc. and would gladly trade these for free software such as Facebook, Gmail. I'm not saying I agree with them, but I recognize that reality.

If that is the case, then I feel less comfortable with the idea that this is simply evil corporations commoditizing users.

Rather, I think the more nuanced explanation takes into account the fact that the web's users today (now at 5 billion people) and the people shaping its content (eg marketers, designers, business people, etc.) simply have a very different set of values than those active at the web’s infancy.

In other words, perhaps it has become democratized...it's just that that means it looks very different than you would prefer it.

[asdff]

Most people don't have enough knowledge to form a relevant opinion on the things that matter to them, and to be fair most people really don't have the time to become experts in everything. For example, before most people understood the harmful effects of smoking, only the people who actually looked at health data were concerned, and their voices were also drowned out by the people who stood to gain enormous amounts of money by having a population addicted to cigarettes. The average person was probably happy to smoke, it makes them look younger after all like the ads they were exposed to tried to demonstrate.

I think in time social media and hostile web will be seen as a similar public health concern. It's already recognized in the data the ill effects on mental health that these dark patterns have on people, and the unprecedented power of manipulation made possible by social networks. It's hard right now because Facebook et al today are what Phillip Morris et al were then: powerful beyond belief due to extreme profit, lobbying, and regulatory capture.

I'm an optimist, so I hope eventually we have our surgeon general moment for social media and the hostile web, and expert voices are heard over those of the monied interests who lobby solely for the continuous growth of their cash cow.

[vpfaulkner]

I agree that, with time, I think/hope many people will realize social media actually has a lot of adverse effects.

However, to say, "most people will come to the same conclusion I have given enough time and evidence" seems a little naïve, and overlooks the spectrum of preferences that people have for the various things developers consider "hostile."

For example, while a lot of developers (myself included) love the minimalism of, say, Hacker News and hate the bloat of, say, nytimes.com, I think it's unfair to call nytimes "hostile" to the user. Frankly, it doesn't grate the typical user that much and the decisions made by NY Times designers/developers reflect that reality.

I think a similar argument can be made about privacy. Some people would pay for a product that is private and without advertisements; others are fine with the tradeoff.

[chrischapman]

> surgeon general moment

I get the impression that the GDPR is ushering in the surgeon general moment that you mention. It's slowly starting to improve the health of the web. The latest rulings may even finally kill the cookie banner. Hallelujah.

[andai]

I know memes aren't welcome here, but I think this one sums it up perfectly: https://i.imgur.com/0fNLxYi.png

[autoexec]

> Most people I know care much less than the Hacker News community about privacy, bloated web sites, web advertisements, etc. and would gladly trade these for free software such as Facebook, Gmail. I'm not saying I agree with them, but I recognize that reality.

"Gladly" here seems like a stretch. No one is happy about slow ad filled webpages that make it hard to read the content they want, they aren't clamoring for pervasive tracking, or unnecessary restrictions. Most people hate those things, but they aren't aware of a reasonable alternative offering what they actually do want and are glad for (reliable email service, pictures of their grand kids, etc) so they tolerate the horrible abuses forced onto them and are grateful for what they can get.

The main difference I see is that most people online don't know that things could be any different. Many don't even realize how much more enjoyable their online experience would be if they simply installed an ad blocker (and used a browser that allowed them). To this day I run into people who honestly think that without pervasive advertising and surveillance capitalism the internet couldn't exist and no one would ever bother to create content for it. Folks who saw the internet in its early days know better, and can see what things have improved and what's gotten worse and how much potential hasn't been realized.

A dog raised eating nothing but table scraps is never going to care as much as someone who is forced to eat them after once having a seat at the dinner table.

[vpfaulkner]

Consider all of the "free with ads or paid without ads" products such as YouTube. It's pretty clear that a substantial number of people understand these tradeoffs and are willing to accept them as I imagine the percent of paid subscribers is miniscule.

Obviously people would prefer, for example, a YouTube that is free, without advertisements, private, etc. But, my point is that developers tend to have different preferences than the general population and, thus, we shouldn't be surprised that the Internet has evolved in a way that reflects those differences.