> The original promise of the Internet and, especially, the WWW was to elide the distinction between publisher and consumer--i.e. developer and user.
I disagree. I do _not_ equate a "publisher" with a "developer". I'd much rather see a world where publishers are _not_ developers. It's not like all the books I read are written by developers.
A developer is analogous to publisher because of the deep publisher/consumer dichotomy. Complexity favors scale, scale requires capital; similarly, complexity favors specialized skills (e.g. developers), which require capital.
Of course, publishers are not actually the same as developers. Few Facebook engineers consider themselves publishers. Heck, Facebook doesn't consider itself a publisher--in the contemporary context a publisher would be a media platform (or "technology" platform). But it's publishers who pay developers, and it's often developers who seek to find themselves in the role of publisher, building their walled gardens, through their startups. Similarly, both publisher and developer are active roles, whereas user and consumer are passive--they exist as largely distinct roles with one primarily existing to enrich the other in exchange for entertainment.
The original promise was in many ways overly simplistic. For one thing, scientists (e.g. CERN scientists) were much better positioned to acquire and utilize certain technical skills as an ancillary part of their job. But the ultimate belief was that by eliding the distinction between publisher and consumer, the erstwhile consumers would be empowered and the erstwhile publishers disempowered. The concern was, as it remains today, about relative control over both the media and the message.
It many important ways it's still relatively simple as an absolute matter to throw up a simple HTML site. But the opportunity costs are different, and so we self-sort ourselves into traditional roles. In that way the original promise was even more naive in believing that roles wouldn't bifurcate in a manner similar to how they historically had been.
Also, suffice it to say that there are still huge markets where developers work building systems not directly related to publishing. But it's the publishers and their ecosystems that are driving most modern software systems, and they drive those systems in directions that are rarely well suited for the needs of everybody else. Rather, those systems are optimized for a network where media platforms push out highly sophisticated content and users are still largely passive consumers notwithstanding the interactive, social aspect.
> but it's publishers who pay developers, and it's often developers who seek to find themselves in the role of publisher, building their walled gardens, through their startups. Similarly, both publisher and developer are active roles, whereas user and consumer are passive--they exist as largely distinct roles with one primarily existing to enrich the other in exchange for entertainment.
There's no nuance here. You're defining "active" and "passive" as two sides of a binary; one can only be active or passive. See, in my daily life I do several things, like using running water, that I am only partially active in. I can choose when to run the water, but the infrastructure and construction of the apparatus under my control was built by someone other than me. So is this active or passive? Does my relationship to running water need to change if I'm happy with it? Why? Can we define "passive" in a philosophically consistent way?
> The original promise was in many ways overly simplistic. For one thing, scientists (e.g. CERN scientists) were much better positioned to acquire and utilize certain technical skills as an ancillary part of their job. But the ultimate belief was that by eliding the distinction between publisher and consumer, the erstwhile consumers would be empowered and the erstwhile publishers disempowered. The concern was, as it remains today, about relative control over both the media and the message.
I think this was one of many messages floating around on the early net and web, and you've made a nostalgia-oriented strawman around it. The ideology itself seems so simplistic as to not stand the test of a basic philosophy course. If people could be neatly slotted into "producers" and "consumers" the world would be a very easily legible place, but it's not.
> Rather, those systems are optimized for a network where media platforms push out highly sophisticated content and users are still largely passive consumers notwithstanding the interactive, social aspect.
Again what does it mean to be "active", what does it mean to be "passive", why is there a dichotomy, and why is it bad to be "passive"? The terms you use seem to have an implicit moral philosophy/valence to it, but I'm not sure why. Under what ethical framework is "passive" bad and "active" good? There's the reality of Gemini to confront as well that this world full of "active" people only produce canned, specific, largely similar content that is only read by other "active" people; the world of "passive" people outside publish and consume media much more diverse and rich on a multitude of platforms that are full of your "largely passive consumers".
To tie this back into the protocol itself, is Gemini then a form of religion or philosophy? Because much like people appreciate not being prosletyzed to by religious figures, people also appreciate not being prosletyzed about technical religion as well, and _no_ Gemini advocate ever mentions how there is mostly a religious belief underpinning Gemini rather than a practical one oriented around the goals in the top pages. (I say this as someone who has written apps and pages on Gemini.)
I disagree. I do _not_ equate a "publisher" with a "developer". I'd much rather see a world where publishers are _not_ developers. It's not like all the books I read are written by developers.