[eksemplar]

I don’t think the web has changed and I think HN is the perfect testament to that opinion.

Almost all of the interesting content I consume online comes from personal self-build blogs, HN or real news papers like the NYT.

I don’t think the content is worse, especially not when you pay for news. Now the NYT is a poor example of this, but the Danish equivalents, Information and Weekendavisen are not, in that one turns off it’s advertising when you subscribe and the other is simply not available for free.

I think in terms of the internet, you get what you pay for. For news the price is money, on HN the price is your ability to be relevant and fair and on personal blogs the price is the time it takes to find them, support them and make interesting responses to them.

The key thing that has changed for me, is how to find interesting things. HN is really the only option I know of, unless you get extremely lucky on a search engine. Because modern search results are so influenced by Alexa rankings and advertising that they very rarely lead you to the gems on the net. I do think the amount of shitty content on the internet, and unregulated/moderated social media makes the problem a lot worse, because it’s harder to find interesting things in an ocean of shit. But ultimately, I think there are as many interesting things on the net as there has always been.

I do find it interesting, that none of the websites I love the most, are powered by any of the popular JavaScript frameworks, well aside from the NYT, but to be fair, the thing I dislike the most about the NYT is it’s intrusive JS.

[Veen]

> I think in terms of the internet, you get what you pay for.

I'm coming round to this perspective. After years of reading "free" news sources I decided to experiment with paid sources. I subscribed to the Times (UK newspaper) and the Economist. The difference in content-quality and design is immense. I particularly like the Times's website compared to the Guardian and other free online newspapers.

As an example, the Times publishes stories in daily editions, much like a traditional newspaper. They may be updated throughout the day, but, as a paywalled publication, there is no pressure on it to publish a constant stream of hot takes and low-grade commentary (as you find in The Guardian) throughout the day to get eyeballs on adverts.

[0x445442]

It was apparent to me a long time ago that most of the web was just a massive direct marketing platform. At the moment I pay for email and news but I expect the set of information and resources I pay for in the future will expand.

However, paying for news doesn't really solve the "fake news" issue as fake is in the eye of the beholder.

[Mindwipe]

You're kidding right?

The Times is nothing but poorly researched clickbait or got take opinion columns preying to the bosses of its readership.

I think you can find high quality paywall content (the FT for example), but yeesh, those are very, very bad examples.

[twtw]

> I don't think the web has changed

> I do think the amount of shitty content on the internet, and unregulated/moderated social media makes the problem a lot worse, because it’s harder to find interesting things in an ocean of shit

The change is not that the good content is gone, it's that the noise level has risen significantly. That "ocean of shit" is the change you don't think exists.

[rocky1138]

Indeed. A few weeks ago I went to youtube.com and was met with horrible videos (clickbait, fake news, yellow journalism, reaction videos, et al) on offer until I realized that I was logged out and it was showing me what the general public sees. I hadn't seen that before.