I mean, I get it, and I agree. But to rail against Social Media and SEO in one breath, and then to have Twitter optimized headers and SEO stuff right at the top of the code seems a wee bit hypocritical.
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta property="twitter:image" content="https://thewebisfucked.com/assets/images/feature.webp" />
<meta property="twitter:title" content="The Web Is Fucked" />
<script type="application/ld+json">
{"headline":"The Web Is Fucked","description":"The web is fucked and there’s
nothing we can do about it. This is a manifesto by Kev Quirk looking back
t Web 1.0 and why it was better.","@type":"WebSite","image":"https://thewebisfucked.com/assets/images/feature.webp","url":"https://thewebisfucked.com/","@context":"https://schema.org"}.
</script>
<!-- End Jekyll SEO tag -->
Feels like this is not really a constructive critique of OPS argument. Indeed, it is merely them ensuring they can gain reach on the platforms they are critiquing, as opposed to screaming into the void as a Web 1.0 holdout.
Look, I don't like mowing the lawn. I think long grass looks nice.
It isn't hypocritical of me to mow my lawn to avoid fines while still advocating for elimination of the grass ordinances in my city.
To directly address your point: the motivation of web 2.0 sites is to get a bunch of money by making the content hard to read without first looking at a bunch of ads, and futher to disallow a reading experience uninterrupted by adds every 30-60s. The web page in question did not show me any ads.
My question to you is: how do you not see the difference?
I didn't see anything that said that the author had to play the game. You're certainly free to post stuff to the web without SEO optimizations and Social Media headers.
It might not get the amplification that they author expected. But that would be pretty in keeping with the Web 1.0 ideals being extolled, right?
Erm, kinda. The site does talk about POSSE (Post Once to your Site, Syndicate Everywhere), as well as using web 2.0 to your advantage. So I don't think it's hypocritical for the site to be SEO or social optimised.
this is just metadata, e.g. any decentralized search would also benefit from this. the best time to add it is when you publish, just like the best time to document your code is when you write it
It's hypocritical in the same way that "You critique capitalism, yet you still have an iPhone" is technically hypocritical. Hypocrisy is an overrated faux-pas; you're allowed to critique systems which you still participate in.
Also the fact the author appears to work for Bank of America... hard to take seriously his complaints about big tech just wanting to make money, in light of that.
Clearly I didn't explain my point very well. I'm responding specifically to the author's throwing shade on big tech's focus on profits. He mentions this five times:
* "It was all about one thing… MONEY!"
* "Why all the tracking? Well, again it comes down to one thing…money."
* "If you’re more likely to click, they make more money."
* "As with social media, it’s all about money."
* "Do you know why, dear reader? You guessed it…MONEY!"
To me, this just seems like a ridiculous thing to harp on when the author works for a massive financial institution. Is BoA's motivation not all about money? Why would you expect big tech companies, or big companies in any industry, to be any different?
I wasn't implying they're big tech, or tech at all. I'm saying it's hypocritical because BoA is a big company that just wants to make money, and sometimes does horrible things [1][2]. Yet the author lobs profanities at tech companies for doing the same?
