We’re used to taking the web for granted. We expect it to be there as substrate, with its addresses, declaratory documents, universally available programming language and the links between pages.
Ah, the links. There’s the rub. How many times have you followed a link and got a 404 or a different page than you were expecting? Links rot. As Tim Berners-Lee says, eventually every domain becomes a porn site.
So we want to do better. We want to build a non-web web. A special place for ourselves and our friends that is self-contained, and where all the pages and links are in the same database, and they can’t rot.
Instead of these messy links with protocols and domains in we just use @names or +names and #topics and tag. It’s easier for people to do, and self-consistent and grows explosively. Biz dev gets excited about the reciprocal deals we can do with other content owners.
If you’ve read Nasim Taleb’s Antifragile, you know what comes next. By shielding people from the complexities of the web, by removing the fragility of links, we’re actually making things worse. We’re creating a fragility debt. Suddenly, something changes - money runs out, a pivot is declared, an aquihire happens, and the pent-up fragility is resolved in a Black Swan moment.
The special place disappears entirely. Or, if we’re lucky, the Archive Team lights the cat signal and emergency archivists preserve it in formaldehyde somewhere else, the clock stopped, the links severed.
Meanwhile, out there on the web, people can still connect and discuss and say what went wrong, and do better next time. The web itself is antifragile. It interprets our business models as damage and routes around them. If we’ve learned, we’ll respect this next time we make something.
There really isn't a problem, you know... Natural selection is at work. Broken links that are important and relevant will be fixed if resources are available. Demand + Feasibility = Durability.
ReplyDelete@Kevin I guess I was thinking a similar thing when The Black Swan came out.
ReplyDeleteThe internet is redundant in some ways, but not in others.
kragen: retweeted this.
ReplyDeletevia twitter.com
Evan Prodromou: favorited this.
ReplyDeletevia twitter.com
Sam Harrelson: mentioned this in Learning And the Fragility of ....
ReplyDeletevia samharrelson.com
Tom Coates: @kevinmarks @adactio @bobbie It sounds dismissive (I can't be bothered to argue with you, just read this pre-canned response)...
ReplyDeletevia twitter.com
Tom Coates: @kevinmarks @adactio @bobbie As well like some kind of weird self-citation that smells so off to me...
ReplyDeletevia twitter.com
Tom Coates: @kevinmarks @adactio @bobbie IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S NOT IDEAL, MAYBE BUT PEOPLE CARE ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS.
ReplyDeletevia twitter.com
Tom Coates: @kevinmarks @adactio @bobbie As well as oddly self-serving, "I've expressed this position better than everyone else on the internet"
ReplyDeletevia twitter.com
Tom Coates: @kevinmarks @adactio @bobbie Which I am not going to bother to read, thanks!
ReplyDeletevia twitter.com
Kevin Marks: @tomcoates @adactio @bobbie I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer
ReplyDeletevia twitter.com
Tom Coates: @kevinmarks @adactio @bobbie In the meantime, seriously, I find self-linking to support an argument on Twitter REALLY weird.
ReplyDeletevia twitter.com
Kevin Marks: @bobbie @tomcoates @adactio all three of the services have ways to export your writings from them. I'm saying to do so.
ReplyDeletevia twitter.com
Chris Adams: mentioned this in “The web itself is antifragile....
ReplyDeletevia plus.google.com
Nikolas 🦄 they/them: mentioned this in Is that the right link? I didn't see anything relating to the challenges that Mastodon faces (and doesn't seem to acknowledge, much less address) or a description of what went well for the systems I've listed (or even what user/business goals are met).
ReplyDeletevia twitter.com