Web use is hard to measure, but by one estimate monthly traffic from search engines has fallen by 15% in the past year. Some of the loudest complaints have come from the news media, an industry in which we acknowledge an interest. But the drought is a wider problem. Science and education sites have lost a tenth of their visitors in the past year. Reference sites are down by 15% and health sites by 31%. Some big names are being gutted: Tripadvisor.com, which recommends the best hotels or beaches, is down by a third; Webmd, which offers reassurance (or alarm) to the poorly, has fallen by half.

…

As the old model buckles, the web is changing. It is becoming less open, as formerly ad-funded content is hidden from bots, behind paywalls. Content firms are reaching people through channels other than search, from email newsletters to social media and in-person events. They are pushing into audio and video, which are harder for ai to summarise than text. Big brands are striking content-licensing deals with ai companies. Plenty of other transactions and lawsuits are going on. (The Economist Group has yet to license its work for ai training, but has agreed to let Google use select articles for one of its ai services.) Hundreds of millions of small sites—the internet’s collectively invaluable long tail—lack the clout to do this.

No one should expect the web of the future to look just as it does today. ai-powered search will rightly shake up some services: business directories, for instance, face disintermediation as answer-bots field queries such as “emergency plumber” or “houses for sale”. But the evaporation of incentives to create content presents a fundamental problem. If human traffic is drying up, the web will need a new currency

…

Bringing a new business model to the web is daunting; it may take a shove from regulators to get started. Yet everyone has an interest in making content-creation pay. Publishers may be the ones complaining now, but if the content tap dries up, ai companies will suffer, too. Some are more vulnerable than others. Whereas Meta can draw on data posted to its social networks and Google owns YouTube, the world’s biggest video vault, Openai relies entirely on others for its content.

If nothing changes, the risk is of a modern-day tragedy of the commons. The shared resource of the open web will be over-exploited, leading to its eventual exhaustion. If that process is not stopped, one of the great common properties of humanity could be gravely diminished. The tragedy of the web would be a tragedy for everyone.

As others have commented, the economist is presenting this as a capitalist issue that requires a monetary fix. The most ironic element to me is that one of the elements of the tragedy of the commons is that is indicates the requirement of a public interest and it’s regulatory interest so the commons can work. So another way to perceive this is that we need a non-capital framework to allow the web to persist. Say perhaps like roads are created as infrastructure to allow the free movement of it’s citizens in a “safe” and organized way, perhaps we should change our perspective on the utility of the we and it’s content. I’m not suggesting that we copy the transportation to the internet as it obviously breaks down, but the need to think outside the capitalist box is apparent. Libraries have been funded both publicly and privately as public interest, and have the capacity to work both for and nonprofit. This adaptation need not just be ‘free’ market driven. Especially as we do not actually live in a free market, but I’ll let others drive down that hole.

Has there been a discussions about how bad or skewed the titles are? I sympathize with the non-editorializing, but major news sources have become painfully bad at what they title. They are necessarily editorialized by their editors to the detriment of the readers.

I would suggest an allowance to at least indicate the editorializing title in the description.

For those who have read the Galaxy’s Edge series, I can only think of the appointees (aka 'Points). Political appointed officer who often end up getting the legionaries killed and lack the combat prowess/skill to be in the officer position they exercise.

Realistically we have many other direct commission officers such as the medical, engineers, legal, etc. What’s really different here is they are not requiring the full 5 week Direct commission officer basic course .

This is a link to the modified app instruction.

https://www.telemessage.com/signal-archiver-android-installation-upgrade/

I first read this as plants, of the green leafy variety. Somehow I also think that is apropos of how little the Democratic caucus does. Congressional shrubs, who just sit there looking pretty.

USA voter registration including party affiliation are public record. https://protectdemocracy.org/work/why-is-voter-registration-data-public/

Building the sort of database you suggest is a very double edge sword though. Use of personal data to persecute people is a tool of fascist. Persuading people as it is currently used by candidates and their proxies is arguably part of democratic (the arguably part is that humans don’t make rational decisions due to cognitive biases, so it is not a fair choice if presented with manipulated information), but it is a way to distribute directed information in this modern age.

We need community and more engagement, not less and isolation. I empathize with the outrage response, but suggest it’s worth being careful in actions that take the form of the enemy.

Does anyone know of an indirect or mirrored source, just wondering if it will go down. Obviously the way back machine, but I’m not sure if it will pull the databased side of it.

…

The Anti-Defamation League report concludes by offering specific advice that Wikimedia reconsider its approach to sensitive topics. The recommendations include creating a pool of experts on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The experts should be verified by the foundation and should moderate disputes that arise.

The ADL appeals to the precedent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Back then, page edits on controversial topics were scrutinized by a team of medical experts. Instead of voting by simple majority, a narrow circle of specialists made the decision.

Wikipedia editors are skeptical of these proposals. The ADL is asking too much of Wikimedia, editor Andrei believes:

“I find this solution rather odd. The Foundation’s interference in the administration of language sections is very rare and hardly ever concerns the content of the articles. It just provides servers, domains, and infrastructure.”

Indeed, Wikimedia does not usually take responsibility for resolving conflicts. Despite having the power to completely replace the pool of administrators of an entire language section — which indeed happened in the cases of the Croatian, Chechen, and Chinese Wikis — the Foundation positions itself as a community of authors. It rarely issues statements to the press and regularly responds to defamation suits by citing sources. In the U.S., such lawsuits against Wikipedia almost always fall apart.

However, a lawsuit that is unfolding in India could set a precedent regarding Wikimedia’s legal liability. The foundation is being sued by the local news agency Asian News International (ANI) over an article claiming ANI spreads state propaganda and fake news.

Wikimedia first responded that the foundation “does not add or correct content” and that editorial decisions are made by a “global community of users.” However, the court found Wikimedia itself to be the proper defendant.

The case is being heard in Delhi, and Wikipedians have created a page about the trial. This is a common practice on the platform, but the Delhi High Court considered it an attempt to influence the proceedings and ordered the page to be removed. Wikimedia is now challenging this decision in India’s Supreme Court.

What matters in this process is not the history of a particular news outlet, but the fact that Wikimedia has been compelled to respond to the claims before a judge, says Dr. Aharoni Lir. She notes another crucial point: at the request of the court, the Foundation disclosed the details of the users who had corrected the article. …

I can search it, but do you have a description of what type of finance transaction are being processed this way still?

I think you are missing the last digit. https://share.libbyapp.com/title/11693967

Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism by Sarah Wynn-Williams

An explosive insider account charting one woman’s career at the heart of one of the most influential companies on the planet, Careless People gives you a front-row seat to Meta, the decisions that have shaped world events in recent decades, and the people who made them.

From trips on private jets and encounters with world leaders to shocking accounts of misogyny and double standards behind the scenes, this searing memoir exposes both the personal and the political fallout when unfettered power and a rotten company culture take hold. In a gripping and often absurd narrative where a few people carelessly hold the world in their hands, this eye-opening memoir reveals what really goes on among the global elite.

Sarah Wynn-Williams tells the wrenching but fun story of Facebook, mapping its rise from stumbling encounters with juntas to Mark Zuckerberg’s reaction when he learned of Facebook’s role in Trump’s election. She experiences the challenges and humiliations of working motherhood within a pressure cooker of a workplace, all while Sheryl Sandberg urges her and others to “lean in.”

Careless People is a deeply personal account of why and how things have gone so horribly wrong in the past decade—told in a sharp, candid, and utterly disarming voice. A deep, unflinching look at the role that social media has assumed in our lives, Careless People reveals the truth about the leaders of Facebook: how the more power they grasp, the less responsible they become and the consequences this has for all of us.

That’s an idiotic statement. Realism or understanding what realpolitik is in a political situation is far more likely to allow you find and develop change in an organization, as well keep you from wasting your time on useless leverage points. In this case knowing both frames of reference is valuable so that action can be taken, as opposed to just writing five words.

Being halfway between both sides, I can see the need for a monetary model to sustain development, yet I am challenged by the opacity that this feels like. The OP’s point that it feels like a downward slide toward principles compromise is challenging. Especially in light of the enshittification of everything lately, Mozilla needs to do a better job communicating how this is not going down that path and yet also trying to sustain itself.

Correct me if I’m wrong but ladybird is focused on a new browser, and not a new browser that is privacy oriented? Their language is pretty specific about donations and independence, but I didn’t catch anything that specifically denotes privacy.

Non paywall link https://archive.ph/MOrsZ

As some who has been out literal in the woods, can someone give me more context?

Just did. https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c5yd157rl21o

While I don’t begrudge another blocker, I do wonder why you wouldn’t want to use ublock origjn.

For some tech nerds, the X-odus is not something to mourn, but could herald the era of decentralised social networks they have been dreaming of known as the “Fediverse”.

Advocates of the “Fediverse” argue that there should be one account for any social media network in the same way that Gmail accounts can email any email addresses, or mobile numbers call users on any other network.

In walling off social networks so users can’t leave, the platform has the power. Instead, newer social networks including Bluesky are being built on “ecosystems” that enable them to interconnect.

No one knows what will happen to X, with predictions ranging from collapse, to flipping to an anti-Trump platform if Musk and the president lock horns, to becoming a training ground for Musk’s xAI venture. AI could gobble up social media, and xAI is valued at $40bn – almost the price Musk paid for Twitter.

People are doing work to figure out how bad the famine will be..

https://github.com/deniscerri/ytdlnis can queue and more, might take a look.