126
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 57 points 1 week ago

Long ago, when I first got on the Internet, the big social media forum was Usenet. It was a distributed network of instances where users would have an account on a particular instance, where they could subscribe to "newsgroups" dedicated to particular topics. Their instance would broadcast their posts to a newsgroup to all the other instances that were following that newsgroup, so everyone could interact even if they were on different instances.

Then the World Wide Web grew, and centralized sites like Digg and Reddit appeared that handled the same sort of social media. Usenet faded. It's still around, I suppose, though these days last I checked it's largely a mechanism for distributing pirated files.

Someday those centralized sites might also fade. Who knows, maybe a decentralized system like Usenet might grow again to replace it?

The wheel turns.

[-] Broadfern@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago

So Usenet was the first fedi site? Reassuring that the concept predates the current paradigm and still has legs, however niche it is atm.

[-] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 23 points 1 week ago

I mean, sort of? It was decentralized because that was just the nature of the early net, rather than a conscious choice to avoid governments and corporations censoring you. They simply didn't have anything like the net we have today.

[-] Broadfern@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

That’s fair. I forgot briefly that fediverse has that political side lol but meant more the technology of “broadcasting” and inter-site communications. Seems a better comparison than email at least.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 13 points 6 days ago

Yeah, Usenet was structured that way more for practical reasons than political ones. Local users were truly local, as in you usually connected to a server that was geographically close to you. Often it was on the same university campus you were on. The long-distance connections between servers didn't have the bandwidth for everyone to just be freely hopping around browsing whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, at least not at first, so mirroring the content was a better approach. It also made things much more reliable, the servers didn't need 100% uptime.

Usenet was a lot more "trusting" in its structure. The newsgroups didn't have moderators per se, and they weren't hosted by specific instances; they were more just a "tag" you could add to a post to let people filter which subjects they were interested in seeing. There was a globally agreed upon list of newsgroups and a distributed system for creating new ones, but it was all pretty informal. Wouldn't work well in the current Internet, it'd get spammed to death in seconds. But on the surface level it really felt a lot like the modern Fediverse does, with subject-specific groups and threaded discussions and such.

[-] Cybersteel@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Userboards, newsgroups, irc chat

[-] frezik 6 points 6 days ago

Sort of. It predated the web, so calling it a "site" is wrong. Just like you can have an email application that's completely separate from your web browser, you can have a Usenet client that's also its own thing. Of course, people made web-based clients as time went on.

Your ISP ran a Usenet server that connected to other Usenet servers. The biggest problem with this system was that your ISP would automatically delete posts past a certain age. Following old threads was a pain.

Google Groups started as a Usenet archive where messages were kept forever. Google bought them and turned it into what it is now.

[-] b_tr3e@feddit.org 7 points 6 days ago

That's why almost no ISP is offering it anymore. No one made money from it, so dump it, maybe try to squeeze some cash out of those hwo really want it but better just drop it.

[-] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 6 days ago

No, it was every service replicating all posts in groups it served.

Like FTP mirrors of FOSS software, there are plenty of mirrors of Debian, for example. Except far bigger traffic.

[-] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 11 points 6 days ago

I get what the video is saying, but I don't see this as a bad thing. We moved on from many of those services because we found better ways to do things, or at least ways that we liked more. And when we move on from the services we use now, it'll be because we once again found something we liked better.

The internet has died several times, but each time it came back in some new way that had adapted to the new ideas and ways we came up with on how to interact with each other. I'm sure when it dies next, we'll replace it with something that better fits our changing wants and needs.

And hopefully, when that time comes, it's something much more decentralized and resilient against governments and corporations meddling and censoring us.

[-] b_tr3e@feddit.org 8 points 1 week ago

...and YouTube is one of the major reasons. The web's not a fucking TV and if you're using it as a TV you'll get stupid even faster than from watching actual TV.

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

Wouldn't that depend on what you're watching?

You can watch reality TV on YouTube, or traditional television.

You can watch educational content and documentaries on YouTube, or traditional television.

Hell you can watch some traditional TV shows on YouTube or traditional television.

YouTube is just a platform for hosting content. Now they may have a "better" algorithm compared to traditional television, but that doesn't really change much.

[-] b_tr3e@feddit.org 3 points 6 days ago

Well, have a look what content is getting the most views. I had no idea someone could be that stupid.

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Well, have a look what TV show is getting the highest ratings. I had no idea someone could be that stupid.

I've heard this argument for like 30 years. Everything old is new again.

[-] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 2 points 1 week ago

Aside: what’s the gist of this channel? I’m not really familiar with it but the last few things I’ve seen of it appear to be two brothers communicating to each other via vlogs?

[-] Brewchin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

The Green brothers are interesting and thoughtful. They try to be an overall positive influence on the internet, even aside from their vlogbrothers thing.

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Pretty much, vlogs as if it were two people communicating back and forth via message. Hank is a really smart dude and also works on the SciShow channel, and his videos are generally pretty good/insightful IMO.

[-] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 6 days ago

just general vlogs about their interests

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
126 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

76046 readers
2261 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS