by bbor | 2026-01-02 00:09:52+00:00
I love the design and the underlying message, but I just have to engage on the three examples of "radical monopolies". Most pressingly, I don't think any of the three show an example like that of the automobile, whose ubiquity is mandatory!

1. Describing "proponents [of the industrial revolution]" as some external group seems pretty absurd, and gives the rest of the piece an unsettling Kazinsky vibe. Yes, of course there are a variety of problems in the world related to the textile industry, that's obvious. But blaming "wage theft" and "over consumption" on the technology itself just seems absurd. You can still buy handmade clothes, and due to transportation-enabled specialization, they'd almost definitely be much cheaper and higher quality than they would've been in 1725!

2. Citing a 256 page report on antibiotic resistance[1] with no page number for the vague claim that they were overprescribed to some extent in the 1950s-70s is just plain rude! Regardless, there's no economic system forcing antibiotics on you; if you really wanted to for some reason, you could even save money by refusing them. Rather, the basic realities of human health are what makes them so ubiquitous, in the same way that they make food or hand washing ubiquitous.

3. This summary of the issues with LEO internet satellites is just way, way oversimplified -- the most egregious part being the implication that it is now "impossible to use earth-based sensors... to learn about space"! More fundamentally, equating LEO telecommunications with astrophysics research because they both involve things above our heads is goofy and misleading. Even more fundamentally--and to return to my overall point--there's no attempt to even vaguely gesture at a "radical monopoly" here! It's fair to say that the vast, vast majority of people only interact with LEO satellites when using GPS, which, again, is absolutely not mandatory.

And, finally, the web:

The web is no exception to this pattern. A vision of interoperability, accessibility, and usability, the World Wide Web was first conceived in 1989... But the proliferation of access and ultimate social requirement of access has spawned countless troubles for human society...

I hope it's clear how "technologies come with downsides" is a much more vague, obvious, and less-useful point than the Radical Monopoly thesis.

It’s an industrial, production-minded way of approaching a discipline that has all the hallmarks of being a great craft

I feel like the word "craft" is pretty telling here, as it strongly implies a break from the marketplace. If you don't like "industrial" websites, maybe take up issue with the concept of industry instead?

Hand-coded, syndicated, and above all personal websites are exemplary

I love personal websites, as do we all. The idea that more than, say, 5% of the population would be interested in them without radical changes to our work-life schedules is a tad absurd tho, is it not? You really think the millions of people who are happily sharing AI-generated images of Jesus statues made out of plastic bottles on Facebook could be tempted away to learn HTML and build their website from scratch? Overwhelming https://xkcd.com/2501/ vibes from this section!

And, finally, my thesis:

The internet does feel genuinely so awful right now, and for about a thousand and one reasons.

No. It can feel awful for one primary reason that dwarfs all others: advertising, which is of course just a wrapper over capitalism. If you want the internet to meaningfully change, no amount of artsy blogs will do the trick: you need to change the economic forces that drive people to contribute non-trivial intellectual products.

I, for one, see a world without advertising within our grasp -- still-capitalist or otherwise. We can do this. The Free and Open internet can exist once again.

[1] https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/a04b4607-044...