5 ms·

As someone whose first “social media” was USENET of the early 90s, and I suppose FidoNet before then, I don’t really consider the bulk of mainstream Internet us

As someone whose first “social media” was USENET of the early 90s, and I suppose FidoNet before then, I don’t really consider the bulk of mainstream Internet users today to be in any way “my people”. The herd is endlessly mindless, shallow, bought with bread, and hungry for the circus.

krapp 2mo ago
[flagged]
- Cider9986 2mo ago
  My exact experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49067097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49067097
devmor 2mo ago
Well that's kind of understandable, isn't it? In the USENET era, internet users were a subculture. In 2026, almost everyone is an internet user. It's kind of like saying "As someone whose first car was a Model T, I don't really consider the bulk of mainstream drivers today to be in any way 'my people'".
- ToucanLoucan 2mo ago
  Exactly. If you were on USENET way back, you were a fucking nerd (lovingly). People romanticize that because it was very likely with any given group of people, they could strike up some kind of conversation, and they likely shared at least a few central values. Now the Internet is just outside with better moderation tools and curation. I will say though the GP's comment: > The herd is endlessly mindless, shallow, bought with bread, and hungry for the circus. That's just everybody, including them even if they refuse to admit it. I have fond memories of many a circus on USENET, on ICQ, on AOL chat rooms, on 4chan, on Digg, everything. They all have circuses with different sorts of clowns putting on different sorts of shows. But they're all equally value-free. Pretending otherwise is just wanking yourself.
  - cindyllm 2mo ago
    [dead]
- nickdothutton 2mo ago
  Selective newsgroups vs the firehose/feed/timeline of modern platforms who generally do not want you to tightly discriminate according to your tastes/interest.
kps 2mo ago
Today is the 12021th of September 1993.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2mo ago
  I'm not old enough to have experienced Usenet. For those who remember Usenet: Do you believe that Eternal September was a failure of cultural transmission? Or was it more of a human capital thing? (Early adopters/academics tend to be better-behaved users?) Another way of thinking about it: Suppose the exact same userbase had joined Usenet, but they trickled in gradually instead of flooding in all at once. How much would that have changed the outcome? FWIW I used to think it was human capital, but have updated more towards cultural explanations. For example, it seems fairly common for academics to make fools of themselves online nowadays.
  - nickdothutton 2mo ago
    I think it was the rate of change. Previous waves were small by comparison and had been absorbed/integrated after a period, with a degree of gradual change. Nothing is forever, but Eternal September was abrupt. To a degree there was an echo of it (not on USENET, but on forums and other places) with the advent of the smartphone in 2007, and another with the mass take-up of Internet services in 2016 on the Indian subcontinent by a huge population.
- jambalaya8 2mo ago
  touché
micromacrofoot 2mo ago
that's because mainstream internet users today are everyone... I don't go for a walk and expect the world to be filled with "my people" either.
- sph 2mo ago
  In fact, the people I see during my walk out are more my people than those I meet on the Internet. They speak my language, are immersed in my culture, and find local neighbourhood problems very relevant. Then I go online, and there's a high likelihood I encounter people from other countries; worse is when you don't even enjoy a little bit of multiculturalism, but all you experience is a majority of people from one country which isn't even yours - like being on this site or Reddit or Twitter and being bombarded by the US perspective of US matters. It's easy for terminally online people like me to forget who even are your people.
  - UtopiaPunk 2mo ago
    I don't see this happening, but I really wish that the Mastodon model centered on joining your city's local Mastodon server. Your server is centered on local people and local conversations. Maybe one would find this local community sort of annoying, but it would be at relevant, at least some of the time. From there, you can connect with other individuals on other servers with similar interests or whatever. But your online identity would be rooted to where you actually live. Time to move to a new city? You just migrate to a new Mastodon server. Makes sense. As it stands now, Mastodon servers are primarily centered on some kind of shared interest, but I don't think that makes much sense. I am a person with many interests, so which do I pick? Over time, I might gradually lose interest in a subject, or simply prioritize something else. Do I leave that old server? It seems like a hassle to move, but it seems weird to stay. The result is that Mastodon servers seem so arbitrary, when they should be really important. Other servers could still exist for the misfits or for people who otherwise find their city's server objectionable. But I think a city being the "default" option would make a lot of sense.
    - fwn 2mo ago

krapp 2mo ago

[flagged]

Cider9986 2mo ago
My exact experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49067097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49067097

devmor 2mo ago

Well that's kind of understandable, isn't it? In the USENET era, internet users were a subculture. In 2026, almost everyone is an internet user. It's kind of like saying "As someone whose first car was a Model T, I don't really consider the bulk of mainstream drivers today to be in any way 'my people'".

ToucanLoucan 2mo ago
Exactly. If you were on USENET way back, you were a fucking nerd (lovingly). People romanticize that because it was very likely with any given group of people, they could strike up some kind of conversation, and they likely shared at least a few central values. Now the Internet is just outside with better moderation tools and curation. I will say though the GP's comment: > The herd is endlessly mindless, shallow, bought with bread, and hungry for the circus. That's just everybody, including them even if they refuse to admit it. I have fond memories of many a circus on USENET, on ICQ, on AOL chat rooms, on 4chan, on Digg, everything. They all have circuses with different sorts of clowns putting on different sorts of shows. But they're all equally value-free. Pretending otherwise is just wanking yourself.
- cindyllm 2mo ago
  [dead]
nickdothutton 2mo ago
Selective newsgroups vs the firehose/feed/timeline of modern platforms who generally do not want you to tightly discriminate according to your tastes/interest.

kps 2mo ago

Today is the 12021th of September 1993.

0xDEAFBEAD 2mo ago
I'm not old enough to have experienced Usenet. For those who remember Usenet: Do you believe that Eternal September was a failure of cultural transmission? Or was it more of a human capital thing? (Early adopters/academics tend to be better-behaved users?) Another way of thinking about it: Suppose the exact same userbase had joined Usenet, but they trickled in gradually instead of flooding in all at once. How much would that have changed the outcome? FWIW I used to think it was human capital, but have updated more towards cultural explanations. For example, it seems fairly common for academics to make fools of themselves online nowadays.
- nickdothutton 2mo ago
  I think it was the rate of change. Previous waves were small by comparison and had been absorbed/integrated after a period, with a degree of gradual change. Nothing is forever, but Eternal September was abrupt. To a degree there was an echo of it (not on USENET, but on forums and other places) with the advent of the smartphone in 2007, and another with the mass take-up of Internet services in 2016 on the Indian subcontinent by a huge population.
jambalaya8 2mo ago
touché

micromacrofoot 2mo ago

that's because mainstream internet users today are everyone... I don't go for a walk and expect the world to be filled with "my people" either.

sph 2mo ago
In fact, the people I see during my walk out are more my people than those I meet on the Internet. They speak my language, are immersed in my culture, and find local neighbourhood problems very relevant. Then I go online, and there's a high likelihood I encounter people from other countries; worse is when you don't even enjoy a little bit of multiculturalism, but all you experience is a majority of people from one country which isn't even yours - like being on this site or Reddit or Twitter and being bombarded by the US perspective of US matters. It's easy for terminally online people like me to forget who even are your people.
- UtopiaPunk 2mo ago
  I don't see this happening, but I really wish that the Mastodon model centered on joining your city's local Mastodon server. Your server is centered on local people and local conversations. Maybe one would find this local community sort of annoying, but it would be at relevant, at least some of the time. From there, you can connect with other individuals on other servers with similar interests or whatever. But your online identity would be rooted to where you actually live. Time to move to a new city? You just migrate to a new Mastodon server. Makes sense. As it stands now, Mastodon servers are primarily centered on some kind of shared interest, but I don't think that makes much sense. I am a person with many interests, so which do I pick? Over time, I might gradually lose interest in a subject, or simply prioritize something else. Do I leave that old server? It seems like a hassle to move, but it seems weird to stay. The result is that Mastodon servers seem so arbitrary, when they should be really important. Other servers could still exist for the misfits or for people who otherwise find their city's server objectionable. But I think a city being the "default" option would make a lot of sense.
  - fwn 2mo ago