The Mosaic browser (1993) had full text history search.

We then got a bookmark system that was every bit as terrible as a web directory.

It stayed that way. The delicious search revenue made organizing websites uninteresting. That obscure website you enjoyed a decade ago but don't even remember, they had lots of traffic like you. No point updating or keeping it online. You can't have rss in Firefox but here is a Facebook like button in your address bar in stead.

I've tried to maintain the bookmark menu but I rarely use it since everything is dead. Why aren't browsers storing a text version of the bookmark? Did people in 1993 have more resources than us? Should I be afraid it grows to a few GB over the decades?

A good few dead websites have a backup some place but there is no automation to find it. If you had a string of text from a page you might be able to search for it. If the page found is highly similar we might automate the process to have alternative location for bookmarks with a nice warning dialog.

I cut out Social Media earlier this year, and it's been one of the best decisions I've made. Part of why I started was remembering that we didn't have doom-scrolling apps before smartphones. The change has been tremendous since I've been trying to go back to more "intentional" media. When I find myself distracted and wanting to pick up my phone, I realize there isn't really anything on it for me to do and am forced to just put it away. So I've started getting into the habit of keeping a book on me wherever I go. I've read 4 books this year!

I noticed that i often spend lots of hours on my computer without doing anything useful but instead doomscrolling on hacker news and watching countless Youtube videos i hardly understand and give little attention. I think i could solve this by making a list of things i want to do on my computer before turning it on, but i haven't tried yet

Peak internet was the brief period of time when it was available but we weren't permanently connected. It was an intentional decision to log on, do what you wanted to do, and then disconnect.

> But like every habit, the only thing you have to do is to keep at it. And if you pay enough attention to it, something will click in your brain.

a bad habit i noticed after taking hiatus of focused work was me jumping into different windows and tabs and just mindlessly consuming content without finishing them. after noticing this pattern, i decided i will focus on one task at a time and finishing it, like reading the OPs article. it did wonders for me and i noticed i'm now even more focused that ever. the lesson is indeed being aware first, and then practicing the habit.

No internet use is inherently intentional. Old-style internet made you choose where to go, but that doesn't make the use intentional. We make choices all the time on auto-pilot. Choosing isn't the same as being intentional.

It's true that it's harder to stay present on addictively designed feeds. But I find it difficult to stay present even visiting traditional websites / classic style forums. We also constantly get distracted reading books. Our minds are estimated to be wandering between 30 and 50% of the time during pretty much any task, even without phones or social media [1].

Presence and intention are skills–they can be trained. Don't expect significant benefits if you switch out addictive internet for classic without also training your attention. This applies for anything of this nature. A few weeks ago I took a weekend without any devices as well as a lot of awareness practicing just during everyday tasks, and one interesting benefit was how it allowed me to take enjoyment from mundane tasks–I stopped thinking of them as things to get done as soon as possible to get back to the computer and started just being.

If you meditate just a few minutes each day, you will start actually noticing yourself getting distracted and then shift to awareness. It feels annoying that you got distracted, but that just means it's working.

The reason to do this is we are much happier when we are present–a wandering mind is an unhappy mind.

I highly recommend Born to Flourish [2] for an introduction to meditation and the science behind it (it's still easy to read).

[1] https://neurosciencenews.com/mind-wandering-focus-25745/

[2] https://annas-archive.gd/md5/0e405c329f33fcb63b4647e386f0ad7...

> You didn’t really have one big app that you could open and order it to entertain you. Instead, you had a few dozen of bookmarks to websites, each with a specific idea in mind.

This overlooks how common custom homepages such as Lycos, Yahoo! and MSN were and how the browsers pushed these as their default home pages.

While they may not be as addictive as "the algorithm" of today, they were still packed with clickbait images/links to attract your attention and ads to drain your wallet.

MSN: https://web.archive.org/web/20021108094511/http://www.msn.co...

My MSN: https://web.archive.org/web/20021107081016/http://my.msn.com...

I heard the term "Gruen Transfer"[1] to describe the successful hijacking of attention in a store. I think it's useful to describe digital platforms, too - you go to YouTube to watch a video recommended by a friend, and then when you're done, The Feed attempts to pull a Gruen on you.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruen_transfer

Related and not related. Fans of https://andymatuschak.org/ might want to know that he is now working at https://x.com/pico, which apparently has the same tagline as this article "Attention is all you have". But really truly don't click that link that site is a hellhole.

(Edit: Wording)

> Instead of picking what we want to see we let other people decide what is supposed to be good for us.

100% agree, and this is exactly why I disable any sort of algorithmic recommendations on the platforms I’m active on. I do this either through the app itself or by using those platforms on the web and hiding distracting elements with an extension like uBlock or AdGuard.

My final feed consists only of channels/profiles I directly follow. Oh, and there’s also RSS…

I really recommend everyone do the same. It really clears your head.

This is why I like books. No attempt at attention hijacking. Wheras every other modern app tries to claw your eyes out.

"But like every habit, the only thing you have to do is to keep at it. And if you pay enough attention to it, something will click in your brain."

This is also a great line. We all know the previous sentences but the 'sth will click' is not well-known. I experienced it when reading long novels from Trollope (and I have ADHD).

Upon my third 800-page novel, my reading speed quadrupled, and my concentration came back to me.

Really, I encourage you to log off and go outside a while, take a look a what the local flora and fauna are about and learn about that, maybe use online tools or communities to learn, but remember to log off and go outside and experience the natural world where you can.

My antidote to this was 100% selfhosting from home as you are now on par with the platforms and have a choice to serve yourself.

You cannot stay focused all day and theres nothing wrong with "just show me random dumb stuff" i mean i wont lie, im old and RTL2 was a thing you know even in educated circles. These no tv people read bad fiction instead.

And i actually kinda like the youtube algo to wind down - but i can also just switch to a timeshift archive.

I think the problem is more that these platforms are reeeally comfortable to use and its not that easy to have the same - doable though.

Oh and btw if you wanna go back to blog circles and xmpp and vpn lan games im all in but times are changing.

This is also why I view advertisement, in general, to be an invasive and incredibly dangerous. TV, online or elsewhere. It's all bad. It doesn't just let people know a product exists. It shapes the way we think about ourselves and the world around us. I view it like a cancer that we need to cut out.

Everyone likes to think they're 'immune' to advertisement. That they're somehow mentally above the whole concept and it doesn't affect them at all. Total nonsense.

I know the post mostly already says this, but related, this is also part of the danger of modern social media algorithms. Negative, outrage-inducing topics tend to get more attention in the short run. However, if someone watches it even once, that causes the algorithm to send a more of that kind of content. Before you know it, some people are getting fed and endless stream of the worst possible news, the most depressing takes, over and over. It can aggravate existing mental health issues or give them to people who did not have them before. The algorithm isn't 'designed' to do this, it's just trying to maximize metrics like time spent. It doesn't 'care' if the topics are negative or positive. But they have to be reshaped to consider the damage they can do when you start multiplying that by hundreds of millions of people.

I noticed the Tetris effect when watching Lex Fridman interviews with Academics. Every expert saw the universe through that lens and thought it was the most significant and most interesting way to look at everything.

I discovered this post not through luck or because of prior (prescient) bookmarking but because a VC decided to build a links aggregator so that techies would hang out on their porch (web property) rather than elsewhere and therefore, would give said VC a chance to invest in their next rocketship.

"There’s one lesson the Tetris effect teaches us: whatever you focus on long enough will end up shaping your thoughts." ---

This should be said more often. In my psychological counseling sessions, I have many victims of porn state that all they think about is you-know-what.

I remember reading an article in I think “net” magazine (Brits, remember that?) in the, I guess, early 2000s, that was predicting the “push” (as opposed to “pull”) internet. At the time I thought that sounded awful, and yep, it’s not good.

I think in the next five years the internet will change drastically. Walled gardens, invite only, and companies that verify you're a human (I.E. use government identification).

There is now no way to tell if somebody online in a human or a robot. Even video/zoom/voice is no longer a distinguishable.

Reminds me very much of this, which I have printed out and placed on my wall at home:

https://www.gurdjieff.org/lannes2.htm

I think this needs a strategic change. Unless you have a clear cut life objective and you are really into it, everything else you try to improve are at most tactical wins that will be lost to time. And those small wins actually make the end frustration worse because you thought you won strategically this time.

I’ll also going to declare that doom scrolling-ish working on non-impactful personal projects is as BAD as doom scrolling twitter.

HN feels a bit like the good old Internet. I hope it keeps being like this, as I feel interactions are nicer and calm here

> Do you want to listen to music? Just open a Spotify playlist and let the algorithm figure out what you like. Please ignore the AI slop they will insert in between real songs to avoid paying royalties to real artists.

To be honest it is worse than this. Spotify over the years just seems to have gotten worse and worse at the one job I want it to do well which is just play the music I already know I want to play, which should be incredibly obvious from my play count and what I've downloaded.

Instead I'm regularly surprised by random noise such as popover in-product ads for extra features I don't care about, and simple AI features I might want like detecting I am in this certain place at this certain time where I usually listen to these albums or playlists so maybe weight them accordingly in a quick access list on the home screen or something aren't, for whatever reason, done.

I mean this doesn't even need LLMs it's just an algorithm, but you see what I mean. Using intelligence in the ways I should obviously care about from the way I use the product, instead of trying to get me to change the way I use it (I won't, I wish there was a way I could just definitively tell them this).

Alas, after years of annoyance with this it's still just about above the bar of useful enough, so I keep paying, and just can't be bothered to invest the time switching to some other service like apple music. So in a sense I'm probably encouraging this behaviour by not churning.

I hope that soon before we can rename "social media" to "AI media," there will be a renaissance of the old internet, where there's a mainstream desire for human-generated content, life events, and real exchanges with each other.

The great internet dishes your a personalized world, that is just designed to your order. This is not something specific to internet.

The physical world around you is also sculpted by your actions. You "feel at home" while at home only because you have adjusted it to become your mould. You become an integral piece in your world, making you a piece in jigsaw puzzle which won't be complete without you.

Your bookshelf, for example, is moulded around your interests. Your wine cellar has your favorite wines. Your clothes just fit your fashion. That's your world. When you visit internet, it presents your own world. It reflects an awareness about you, just like your wardrobe does.

In wardrobe case, you intentionally made your choices. In the internet case, you intentionally expressed your interest by your implicit interactions that were enough to be translated into your selections.

Nothing spooky.

"There’s one lesson the Tetris effect teaches us: whatever you focus on long enough will end up shaping your thoughts."

Yes. And--change your thoughts, change your life: https://thinkhuman.com/change-your-thoughts-change-your-life...

But it does feel like intentional doom-scrolling exists, some of it intentional that can be so inspiring. Mainly when I'm keeping in mind "what will I remember", some of it truly stick

I wrote [something extremely similar](https://blog.scoopy.zone/posts/attention/) a bit ago. It is much harder to accomplish, but like the article says, you can still experience an Internet like the past.

As logic stands, you couldn't meet a man who's from the future But logic broke; as he appeared, he spoke about the future

[Pre-Chorus] "We're not going to make it," he explained how the end will come "You and me were never meant to be part of the future"

[Chorus] All we have is now All we've ever had is now All we have is now All we'll ever have is now

[Verse 2] I noticed that he had a watch and hat that looked familiar He was me, from a dimension torn free of the future

[Pre-Chorus] "We're not going to make it," he explained how the end will come "You and me were never meant to be part of the future"

[Chorus] All we have is now All we've ever had is now All we have is now All we'll ever have is now

Flaming Lips - All We Have Is Now

On the social science side, The Ecology of Attention[1] talks about attention as an ecosystem and the final economic frontier for capitalism. It envisions a world where every moment of our attention is fought over by commercial entities, which feels pretty prescient at the moment.

[1] https://www.perlego.com/book/1536286/the-ecology-of-attentio...

> LinkedIn will bury any relevant career news between the opinion of complete strangers. It is surely just a coincidence that those strangers happen to be shilling whatever Microsoft is invested in at the moment.

The browser extension LinkOff makes the feed much more bearable, even useful. [1]

Also, though I dislike the posts that LI pushes into my feed, I've never gotten the sense that this was motivated by a desire to boost Microsoft's investments. Perhaps I just wasn't paying attention, or am not cynical enough?

1: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/linkoff-filter-and-...

This is a story of enshittification but... I don't see any of it and neither should anyone who reads HN:

* adblocking is simple both in browser and on the dns level,

* revanced youtube allows you to even skip sponsored segments, regular ads don't deserve a mention, you will see none,

* reddit hasn't been good in forever, it's why we're here,

somehow Twitter/Spotify/YouTube/TikTok algos work just fine for me with this one simple trick: I watch the good stuff, and skip/block/mute the not-so-good stuff. This works less well on LinkedIn but it's a Microsoft product, what did you expect, really.

If you're like me, ie. on Hacker News daily, the modern Internet is a never ending series of wonders with virtually none of the inconvenience. And if on some absolute edge, you must use a website that sucks, both Claude and ChatGPT can drive a browser nowadays.

We don't have protection from attention hijacking algorithms the same way workers didn't have protection until unions became a thing. AI can do more for consumers than Unions ever could (because it'll be more uniform). Currently there's no motivation (monetary or otherwise) to make this tech easily available to the masses - and when it does the bad actors and dark pattern wizards will miss the good ole days when only the select few had access to these patterns.

Just saying, the author blames corporate internet and the algorithm that feed you content, but if you browse 2 articles before (this one: https://alicegg.tech/2026/06/12/popular-upcoming) he then praised steam for removing the “upcoming game list” that was purely based on the number of wishlist a game received and is praising the new algorithmic personalized calendar of upcoming “for you”. I find it a bit hypocritical.

People use these algorithms because they love them, and yeah someone posting once every 1 or 2 month is not going to make it in these days and ages. I don’t think the internet became worst, it just adapted to other needs.

What's a good RSS service / client nowadays?

I really liked to read this. i had this idea in mind but its nice to be remind of it

It is definitely a XXIst century skill to direct your attention. I am convinced that it is not only by deliberately choosing to be outside the tech bubble, reading paper books or newspapers but also by « pruning » algorithms.

Especially on YouTube that can spiral you on a rabbit hole, it can become a very powerful learning force. I have quite a few friends that became experts in niche subjects by rabbit holing themselves on these topics on YouTube, for example, a serigraphist, a carpenter on Japanese carpenting art or a ceramist.

I think the issue already existed for those who had access to the largest libraries and book stores, only Internet reduced friction, increased span of topics and added video.

Since Da Vinci, it is not possible anymore to have all the knowledge in your mind so focus and attention is the main super power.

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed in this post. Our attention is extremely valuable (both to us and to advertisers), and consumers today broadly squander it.

For consumer digital products, the only business model that seems to work is advertising, because consumers are cheap and refuse to pay money for software. But the result is that they instead trade something far more valuable for the software, which is their attention.

The products that get built, as a result, are supremely well-engineered to attract and retain attention, to the detriment of their users. Most of the "news" that reaches us these days is not at all an attempt to actually educate us about the state of the world. Instead its just a collection of inflammatory and enraging facts that are chosen to optimize for engagement (to hold your attention)

In theory, someone could rebuild an ecosystem where people stopped squandering their attention and monetized it with money, but this would require consumers to stop chronically undervaluing their time and overvaluing their money.

I don't think social media is inherently bad. For me, the measure is whether I'm wallowing in consuming rather than doing. Although, yes, it's easy to get lost in consuming, doing takes much more intent/attention.

> Do you want to watch a video? YouTube knows you like cooking and art streams. But why not also recommend a few clips about the stock market bubble, global warming, and the war in Iran.

I'm always fascinated when people claim YouTube pushes content like this. It's an extremely common take, but I don't think it's true.

My experience has been that if I stop clicking something, the algorithm soon stops recommending it. It occasionally brings back a blast from the past--e.g. I watched a sumo competition once, and once in a blue moon it recommends another. But you can downvote bad recommendations, and I simply don't get recommendations for ideas I've never engaged with before.

FWIW I'm not saying the algorithm is great. My feed is absolutely worthless right now, but it's all goofy Japanese content because one of my kids is extremely into that right now. There's zero political content because she isn't showing any interest in it. Heck, most of the stuff isn't even in English anymore.

the most intentional internet was made by people, not algorithms

now that we have cheap spam filtering, why don't we go back to forums

I made it 37 words into the article - highlight and search "Tetromino" -> Wikipedia Tetromino -> Alexey Pajitnov -> ...

is doomscrolling actually net bad for you? it seems that younger generations (gen alpha) spend disproportionately more time doomscrolling / being iPad kids, but they also seem significantly smarter than older generations.

this might be the correlation causation fallacy, but it seems to me that combining micro-pieces of reality though a continual stream might actually have net positives on information.

Oh funny I thought you were talking about LLMs.

Attention is all you _are_

Attention is the axis of reality. Focus on a thing and it gets realer. Ignore a thing and it fades away.

I use SelfControl for Mac and set the down time to around 15 days. No Youtube no news sites etc. Except HN. It's helped a lot, after a week you can notice measurable change in attention and habit and productivity. SelfControl lets you add 48 hrs to your blocked time repeatedly, so you can get to a 15 day mark pretty easily through repeated mouse clicks.

>Before recommendation algorithms where a thing, you had to decide what you would be doing on the computer.

This is just the illusion of choice. Not only that attention was already being monetized. Digital advertising didn't start with algorithmic feeds.

wait till we finally discover that attention is also all we are...!

[flagged]

[dead]

[dead]

[flagged]

Click bait title :/ I thought it's a machine learning article