Tag Archives: history

Thoughts on the Mistakes of the Social Web

Posted on by
Reply

The internet was social before the social web. That part gets forgotten. People talked on IRC, forums, mailing lists, Usenet, AIM, Discord-style rooms, and all kinds of weird little places. The difference was that those places had context. You were not just “an account.” You were a person in a room, with some history, some reputation, and some reason for being there.

If you linked to your own thing in one of those spaces, people usually did not lose their minds as long as it was relevant. The question was not, “Did you make this?” The question was, “Is this useful here?” That is a much healthier standard. Sometimes the best link in the conversation is your own link because you are the person who wrote the thing, built the thing, documented the thing, or found the thing.

The social web broke that in a strange way. It created a huge opening for credibility fraud. Suddenly everyone could perform expertise, manufacture popularity, juice engagement, buy followers, write in brand voice, growth-hack sincerity, and pretend to be a participant while actually acting like a little attention-extraction machine. The feed turned normal human sharing into a suspicious transaction.

So now we live in this dumb world where links are both the blood vessels of the web and somehow treated like contraband. A web with no links is barely the web. It is just a set of private malls with recommendation engines and security guards. “Do not link to your own stuff” sounds noble until you realize it mostly helps people who are already big enough that other people link to them automatically.

PageRank made sense in a world where someone else might find your weird little page and link to it from their weird little page. That was the old bargain: publish something good, and the graph of the web slowly discovers it. But a lot of that middle layer is gone or weakened. Personal sites, blogrolls, directories, small forums, and independent linking culture got paved over by platforms. Now the system still wants backlinks, but the places where people actually gather often punish the behavior needed to create them.

That is one of the great little ironies of the modern web. The machine wants evidence that the world cares, but the world has been trained to treat public linking as spam unless it comes from someone already blessed by the machine. Nice little closed loop there. Very elegant. Completely cursed.

There is an important exception here: I am much less hostile to things like Bluesky, Mastodon, ActivityPub, AT Protocol, and other systems that at least try to make the social layer protocol-shaped instead of purely platform-shaped. That matters. Federation is not magic fairy dust, and protocol people can still be annoying in the very special way protocol people are annoying, but the architecture is pointed in a better direction.

A federated or protocol-based social system is not the same animal as a giant closed platform casino. If identity, distribution, clients, moderation, and hosting can be separated, then users are not trapped in quite the same way. The conversation can move. The client can change. The server can change. Communities can set local norms. The graph is not just locked in some corporate basement next to the engagement-optimization goblin.

That does not make every federated system good. It does not mean Bsky or Mastodon or anything else automatically solves the human problems. People can bring status games, mobs, spam, and weird little dominance rituals anywhere. Give humans a protocol and we will eventually find a way to argue about the chairs. But protocol-based social is at least trying to preserve some of what made the internet good: links, portability, interoperability, local context, and the possibility that no single company gets to be the landlord of human conversation.

So the problem is not “people talking online.” That would be an insane take. The internet is one of the best machines humans ever made for finding each other. The problem is the platform-owned social web: permanent, indexed, engagement-maximized, reputation-scored, and monetized within an inch of its life.

I understand why everyone built social features. In the pre-AI era, if you wanted a big site, users were the cheapest way to get content. Users wrote the posts, uploaded the photos, made the comments, tagged the pages, reviewed the restaurants, liked the posts, ranked the content, argued with each other, moderated each other, and generated the graph. The whole thing rode on the backs of users because paying people to produce and organize all that stuff was expensive as hell.

But that bargain had a cost. The user did not just contribute to the product. The user became the product, the inventory, the moderation problem, the credibility signal, and eventually the unpaid little hamster powering the engagement wheel.

And then because everything was public, permanent, indexed, and monetized, normal social behavior got weird. A casual thought became content. A disagreement became a searchable artifact. A joke became evidence. A person became a profile. A community became a growth channel. Human interaction got shrink-wrapped, barcoded, and stacked on a pallet in the warehouse of the feed.

I do think the social web has value. I am not saying people should stop talking online. But social interaction is often temporary, contextual, and messy. The web is durable, searchable, and decontextualized. Those are not naturally the same thing.

That mismatch is where a lot of the damage came from. We took ephemeral human behavior and made it permanent infrastructure. We took conversations that should have lived in rooms and put them on billboards. Then we acted surprised when everyone got performative, defensive, spammy, paranoid, or insane.

Maybe the healthier split is simple: let the web be good at durable reference, and let social be good at human context. Links, pages, sources, guides, documents, indexes — those belong on the web. Jokes, arguments, half-formed thoughts, “you had to be there” moments, and random social chatter probably belong somewhere smaller, softer, more local, or at least more portable than the giant engagement platforms.

AI changes the economics here. It may now be possible to build useful information systems without forcing users to generate the entire content layer. Machines can parse public sources, organize messy information, summarize, classify, dedupe, and turn scattered material into something usable. Humans can review and steer instead of being mined for every post, like, comment, and scrap of attention.

That does not mean AI slop should replace human culture. Please, God, no. The last thing we need is the web turning into a haunted vending machine full of synthetic LinkedIn posts. But it does mean we may not need to make every useful site into a little social casino anymore.

The mistake of the social web was not that people talked to each other. Talking is good. The mistake was turning talk into permanent content, content into ranking fuel, ranking into status, status into credibility, and credibility into a fraud market.

The web should have links. People should be allowed to point at things. Making something useful and saying “here, I made this” should not automatically be treated like some moral failure. That is how the web breathes.

A link-hostile web is an anti-web. It is a graph afraid of its own edges.

But a protocol-shaped social web? A federated web? A web where people can talk without every conversation becoming feed chum for the same giant machines?

That might be worth saving.

A Love Letter to San Leandro

Posted on by
Reply

San Leandro is the kind of city that reveals itself slowly. https://sanleandrodaily.com

It does not usually announce itself with the same volume as some of its neighbors. It does not have to. Its character lives in smaller, steadier things: a public library that matters, neighborhoods that still feel like neighborhoods, local restaurants people genuinely return to, parks that get used, and a shoreline that can change the tone of an entire day.

That quiet substance is part of why I keep coming back to it.

San Leandro feels practical in the best sense of the word. It feels lived in. It feels useful. It is a place where civic infrastructure still matters, where community programming is not an afterthought, and where small businesses still help define the texture of daily life. There is a kind of dignity in that. A city does not need to perform for the outside world to be worth loving.

From a technical point of view, San Leandro is more interesting than people sometimes realize. It has real industrial history, a meaningful business base, and even its own unusual infrastructure story through Lit San Leandro and the city’s long-running interest in connectivity and modern economic development. That combination of public life, local identity, and technical ambition is rare. It is one of the reasons building software for this city feels so worthwhile.

That is also the spirit behind San Leandro Daily.

The goal is not to build a generic city app and stamp a local name on it. The goal is to build something that respects the actual rhythms of San Leandro: library events, public meetings, neighborhood happenings, family programs, local deals, and the many small signals that tell you a city is alive if you are paying attention. Under the hood, the work is fairly straightforward on purpose: a FastAPI backend, PostgreSQL for content, and a cross-platform mobile stack that keeps the product maintainable. The technology matters, but only because it helps the city show up more clearly.

That is the heart of it for me. San Leandro deserves clear attention. It deserves tools that make it easier to see what is already here.

Some cities demand to be noticed. San Leandro rewards noticing.

Merit, But Make It Legible

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Merit, But Make It Legible

One of the more irritating features of modern life is that people love to say they reward merit when what they often reward is legibility.

Not raw capability.
Not force of will.
Not how much resistance someone had to push through to become good at something.

Legibility.

Did the achievement arrive in packaging the system already knows how to admire? Did it come with a famous school, recognizable institutions, polished references, family support, clean internships, the right tone, the right posture, the right little trail of approved breadcrumbs? If so, people relax. They call it excellence.

Meanwhile, if someone arrives at similar visible competence through a messier path — sparse resources, little formal support, public materials, self-direction, no safety net, and almost no room for error — the response is often weirdly diminished.

That person becomes scrappy.
Surprisingly strong.
Promising.
Impressive, considering.

Considering what, exactly?

What is being “considered” is usually the absence of prestige decoration. The person may have built nearly the same capability, or in some cases more durable capability, but because they did not emerge from a trusted institutional pipeline, people treat the result as somehow less real. Or more provisional. Or faintly suspicious. They get credit, but in the off-brand, slightly patronizing way society reserves for people who succeeded without first being pre-approved.

This is backwards in an important sense.

The person who had elite schooling, money, family support, institutional legitimacy, and low-friction access to opportunity may in fact be highly capable. None of this automatically disqualifies them. Plenty of advantaged people are genuinely excellent.

But there is still a difference between demonstrating excellence under supportive conditions and constructing yourself under weak ones.

The bootstrap path often demands a set of traits that institutions claim to admire but are not especially good at recognizing in the wild:

  • initiative
  • independence
  • persistence
  • improvisation
  • the ability to learn without structure
  • the ability to continue without validation
  • the ability to recover from mistakes that were actually costly

Those are not decorative virtues. Those are core builder traits.

And yet, because they do not come pre-certified by prestige systems, they are routinely under-read. Not merely under-resourced at the start — under-credited even after the fact.

That distinction matters.

Being under-resourced means you lacked inputs.
Being under-credited means the world misreads what you produced.

Those are different problems.

The first makes the climb harder.
The second makes the summit look smaller than it is.

A lot of evaluators will insist this is not bias, just pragmatism. They will say elite labels are useful proxies. And to be fair, they are. Institutions act as compression algorithms. They save busy people the trouble of asking inconvenient questions like:

  • How hard was this path, actually?
  • How much support was quietly embedded in the background?
  • How much independent force did this person have to generate on their own?
  • How many hidden cushions were mistaken for personal greatness?

These are not questions most systems are built to ask, because they are expensive to answer and mildly destabilizing to the mythology. It is much easier to see Harvard, billionaire parents, polished confidence, and familiar signals, then conclude: obviously exceptional.

Clean. Efficient. Safe.

It is much less comfortable to look at someone who assembled themselves from public materials, intermittent guidance, and sheer stubbornness, then admit that what you are seeing may represent a more violent act of self-construction.

The elite profile is often treated as natural greatness.
The bootstrap profile is often treated as an anomaly.

But anomalies are sometimes just reality showing through the branding.

This does not mean the bootstrap person is always better. That would just be reverse snobbery with better PR. The point is narrower and more important: achievement is frequently judged by how frictionless it looks, not by how much force was required to make it happen.

And force matters.

Especially in domains where the environment is unstable, where there is no syllabus, where support is partial, where nobody is coming to organize your progress for you. In those situations, the ability to move without structure, learn without permission, and continue without applause is not some charming side trait. It is often the thing itself.

That person may not sound as polished.
They may not tell the story as elegantly.
They may not have the right names on the résumé.
They may not know how to perform legitimacy in the dialect gatekeepers prefer.

But sometimes they built more real capability with less help and less slack.

And the world, being the world, often reads that as scrappy instead of formidable.

Which is convenient, because formidable would force people to rethink what they are actually rewarding.