• Rooster326@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I wouldn’t say nothing happened. Young people migrated off of it and it’s now the lead gasoline of the social media world

      • gustofwind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        75
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah but young people didn’t migrate off it because it was harmful

        They migrated in part to instagram which Facebook bought and made even more harmful than Facebook itself

        • FilipDaFlippa@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah ig is the worst part of Facebook, just people curating what they want people to think their life looks like

            • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              facebook has a very different target audience

              facebook is mostly about 60+ year olds holding their beer and saying sth like “beer, car, church is all we need” while instagram is predatory on 16-y.o girls telling them that they’re not pretty and worthy of love if they’re not significantly (scarily, in fact) underweight and wear lots of makeup to cover their true emotions/face.

      • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        social media just needs http requests to exist, how does pre web 2.0 fix things honestly. gui apps have existed since windows 95 or even earlier, how is the tiktok app technically different than the space cadet paddle game with added network functionality?

        • Oggyb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Web 2.0 is the umbrella term for a bunch of things that enabled the social media we see today. Infinite scroll, notification toasts and asynchronous loading of new content to name a few.

          If we had to reload a page every time we wanted new content we would see way less and move on more quickly.

          • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            To add to this, Web 1.0 was also known as the “read-only” Web. Webpages were managed by their owners and those owners decided what visitors saw. Those visitors also did not have the ability to add their own content to the pages. They might have had the ability to comment, or to make posts on BBS sites, but they couldn’t just submit anything. Then in 2004, it changed. We transitioned to Web 2.0. All the things you mention allowed visitors of webpages to actively submit content to those pages, and soon it became known as the “read-write” Web.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      nothing happened

      Nah, the perpetrators continues to make endless money, etc. Lots of capitalist stuff has been happening.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      25 years ago. Every study on social media and mental health back then showed it was bad.