upvote

points

by inigyou5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby xp843 hours ago|
next
[-]
> websites would treat your uploaded data with respect

Are you saying that the free websites in question owed their users completely free storage of that data, in perpetuity?

How is that a reasonable expectation, regardless of how one viewed "Chad"?

I can agree that that would certainly be nice. But like, with the exception of those who remained in continuous profitable operation, most free sites will end up shut down or sold, so either the data will be deleted, or someone is going to be paying for servers continuously to preserve that data forever. No one will do that and expect $0.

I'd also add that I am pretty sure of all random things uploaded to random sites 20 years ago, 99% of it is either content no one cares about today, or content that the uploader kept on their own disk or their paid cloud storage.

reply
upvoteby veltas4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I will say personally I didn't feel this way in the 2000's, and I was a child at the start of that decade. Maybe I am cynical.
reply
upvoteby klodolph4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Back in the 2000s I think a much larger fraction of the web was running out Chad’s garage.

You got a Pentium III and a DSL connection? Run a website! Run an IRC server!

reply
upvoteby al_borland3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I took a tour of the CBOE in 2011. The old trading pits that were no longer used were filled with a random assortment of desktop PCs running as servers for the exchange. At least that’s how it look and what they told us. I hope it isn’t still that way.
reply
upvoteby dghlsakjg4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks

2004 is when that was typed. I'm not sure that that social contract ever existed. We just didn't understand how "free" services worked.

reply
upvoteby smrq4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
This really seems like the exception that proves the rule, given how few Facebooks came out of that era. We had a social contract, but it turned out that being sociopathic is a winning strategy when everyone else is playing by the implicit rules. See also: modern politics.
reply
upvoteby mopsi2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Indeed. The 2004 chat snippet is notable because it displayed attitude that was uncommon at the time. Zuck made it mainstream.
reply
upvoteby kevin_thibedeau4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
That works when you are the product and they have customers who want to use their humans for some other business activity. If they have viable customers, you are useless as a product.
reply
upvoteby micromacrofoot3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
social contracts stop working when they're not between individual people with a shared experience

when you make a contract with facebook or any other large site you're making a contract with a legal team tasked with protecting their money

at a certain point scale only works through oppression

reply