I think that it’s interesting to look back at calls that were wrong to try to help improve future ones.

Maybe it was a tech company that you thought wouldn’t make it and did well or vice versa. Maybe a technology you thought had promise and didn’t pan out. Maybe a project that you thought would become the future but didn’t or one that you thought was going to be the next big thing and went under.

Four from me:

  • My first experience with the World Wide Web was on an rather unstable version of lynx on a terminal. I was pretty unimpressed. Compared to gopher clients of the time, it was harder to read, the VAX/VMS build I was using crashed frequently, and was harder to navigate around. I wasn’t convinced that it was going to go anywhere. The Web has obviously done rather well since then.

  • In the late 1990s, Apple was in a pretty dire state, and a number of people, including myself, didn’t think that they likely had much of a future. Apple turned things around and became the largest company in the world by market capitalization for some time, and remains quite healthy.

  • When I first ran into it, I was skeptical that Wikipedia would manage to stave off spam and parties with an agenda sufficiently to remain useful as it became larger. I think that it’s safe to say that Wikipedia has been a great success.

  • After YouTube throttled per-stream download speeds, rendering youtube-dl much less useful, the yt-dlp project came to the fore, which worked around this with parallel downloads. I thought that it was very likely that YouTube wouldn’t tolerate this — it seems to me to have all the drawbacks of youtube-dl from their standpoint, plus maybe more, and shouldn’t be too hard to detect. But at least so far, they haven’t throttled or blocked it.

Anyone else have some of their own that they’d like to share?

  • xenomor@lemmy.worldEnglish
    61·
    11 hours ago

    In the mid-nineties I passionately believed that the internet would democratize information and usher in a wonderful new era of well-informed critical thinking and general enlightenment. Basically the opposite has happened.

    • qevlarr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      44 minutes ago

      It wasn’t just you, this was the general sentiment in the west. Cory Doctorow (now of “enshittification” fame) wrote “The Net Delusion” about it

      • thelivefive@startrek.websiteEnglish
        3·
        2 hours ago

        I think the Internet still has lots of promise. We just did a capitalism on it. If we can get the cancer out it’ll be an amazing thing again.

        But I do think some of that early promise was overestimated, because mostly smart people were on it then. We thought it was the medium, but it was just techies or people with hobbies or interest that made it that special place, now that your average Joe is there it’s mostly shit, but go somewhere with a little barrier to entry (like Lemmy) and it is pretty cool again.

    • tal@lemmy.todayOPEnglish
      5·
      9 hours ago

      considers

      I’ve been in a couple conversation threads about this topic before on here. I’m more optimistic.

      I think that the Internet has definitely democratized information in many ways. I mean, if you have an Internet connection, you have access to a huge amount of information. Your voice has an enormous potential reach. A lot of stuff where one would have had to buy expensive reference works or spend a lot of time digging information up are now readily available to anyone with Internet access.

      I think that the big issue wasn’t that people became less critical, but that one stopped having experts filter what one saw. In, say, 1996, most of what I read had passed through the hands of some sort of professional or professionals specialized in writing. For newspapers or magazines, maybe it was a journalist and their editor. For books, an author and their editor and maybe a typesetter.

      Like, in 1996, I mostly didn’t get to actually see the writing of Average Joe. In 2026, I do, and Average Joe plays a larger role in directly setting the conversation. That is democratization. Average Joe of 2026 didn’t, maybe, become a better journalist than the professional journalist of 1996. But…I think that it’s very plausible that he’s a better journalist than Average Joe of 1996.

      Would it have been reasonable to expect Average Joe of 2026 to, in addition to all the other things he does, also be better at journalism than a journalist of 1996? That seems like a high bar to set.

      And we’re also living in a very immature environment as our current media goes. I am not sold that this is the end game.

      There’s a quote from Future Shock — written in 1970, but I think that we can steal the general idea for today:

      It has been observed, for example, that if the last 50,000 years of man’s existence were divided into lifetimes of approximately sixty-two years each, there have been about 800 such lifetimes. Of these 800, fully 650 were spent in caves.

      Only during the last seventy lifetimes has it been possible to communicate effectively from one lifetime to another—as writing made it possible to do. Only during the last six lifetimes did masses of men ever see a printed word. Only during the last four has it been possible to measure time with any precision. Only in the last two has anyone anywhere used an electric motor. And the overwhelming majority of all the material goods we use in daily life today have been developed within the present, the 800th, lifetime.

      That’s just to drive home how extremely rapidly the environment in which we all live has shifted compared to how it had in the past. In that quote, Alvin Toffler was talking about how incredibly quickly things had changed in that it had only been six lifetimes since the public as a whole had seen printed text, how much things had changed. But in 2026, we live in a world where it has only been a quarter of a lifetime, less for most, since much of the global population of humanity has been intimately linked by near-instant, inexpensive, mass communication.

      I think that it would be awfully unexpected and surprising if we would have immediately figured out conventions and social structures and technical solutions to every deficiency for such a new environment. Social media is a very new thing in the human experience at this scale. I think that it is very probable that humanity will — partly by trial-and-error, getting some scrapes and bruises along the way — develop practices to smooth over rough spots and address problems.

      Consider, say, the early motorcar, which had no seatbelts, windscreen, roof, suspension, was driven on a road infrastructure designed for horse-drawn carts to travel maybe ten miles an hour, didn’t have a muffler, didn’t have an electric starter, lacked electric headlights and other lighting, an instrument panel, and all that. It probably had a lot of very glaring problems as a form of transportation to people who saw it. An awful lot of those problems have been solved over time. I think that it would be very surprising if electronic mass communication available to everyone doesn’t do something similar.

      • acosmichippo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        8 hours ago

        I think that the Internet has definitely democratized information in many ways.

        unfortunately the internet democratized the creation of information, which is one part of the the problem. Now everyone and their creepy uncle can say whatever they want and post it everywhere. Good info is drowned out by a firehose of misinformation.

        The other part of the problem is access to information is definitely not democratized; it’s controlled by billionaires, state troll mills, and bots. People are not equipped to deal with that. This is what you get with libertarian ideals, might makes right.

    • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      9·
      10 hours ago

      I often think about an Arthur C. Clarke book—I think Songs of Distant Earth?—that has a colony of humans that solves all the big debate questions facing their society anonymously through the internet, which has completely solved the problem of judging ideas based on who said them.

      Bless the optimists.

    • Random_Character_A@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      10 hours ago

      Yeah. Didn’t we all. Although I’ve met several smart young people that self educated themselves in to a impressive degree.

      Then again I’ve met dozen times more dumb-dumbs that have made their idiocy much much worse and are spreading it around.

      Polarizing as always. Sorry to say on average for the worse.