> When I'm feeling down I call it “Internet Gated Communities”, when in an optimistic mood, “The Faculty Club”. This may lead to what many observers refer to as “the Balkanisation of the Internet”—a fragmentation of the “goes everywhere, reaches everybody” vision of the global nervous system into disconnected communities. This may not be such a bad thing.
This happened. In the Philippines, for example, almost all online interaction takes place on Facebook. FB isn't a gated community, but it allows people to set up their own gated communities by the services it layers on top of raw http and html. Another word is "walled gardens", and again, walled gardens are popular because unwalled gardens become slums.
The point is, libertarians, open standards advocates and "old web" nostalgists need to recognize why these services are popular, if they are going to have a chance of protecting the openness they care about.
Precisely this, old internet was fun and good because it was a defacto walled garden. A very specific group of people had access to the internet. Want to bring that magic back? recreate that crowd / demographic. It is really that simple. The internet, once truly connecting everyone, was always just going to mirror the physical human world, because why would it not?
Facebook is a walled garden; it requires you to sign up before viewing most content. Quora, Instagram, and Pinterest are the same way.
> Another word is "walled gardens", and again, walled gardens are popular because unwalled gardens become slums.
Gardens are not walled off for the benefit of the users; they are instead walled off to benefit the network’s owners. There are three chief factors motivating owners to walk in their networks: Preventing rivals from scraping content or user data, encouraging users to sign up so that their activity can be monetized, and keeping content platform exclusive (most platforms will penalize content that has a competing platform’s watermarks on it).
> Gardens are not walled off for the benefit of the users; they are instead walled off to benefit the network’s owners.
This is true, but the implication that therefore there are no benefits for the users is false. If Facebook was worse than the web for users, they'd flock to the web. (At this point, usually some implicit argument is made that users are foolish and misguided. I'd urge you not to go down that route.)
> If Facebook was worse than the web for users, they'd flock to the web.
People go to these platforms for a reason, my point is that the reason isn't because they are walled off. It seems like you are arguing that the chief (if inadvertent) benefit to users of a walled garden is that users don't have to deal with undesirable behavior because access to the platform is restricted by a login wall. This isn't how I would understand a service being "walled off" - Hacker News is not a walled garden even though I need an account to access some of its features. The important distinction is that most (all?) of the content on Hacker News can be accessed without an account. Facebook, Pinterest, and Quora are examples of services going the other way - they lock down content, not for the benefit of the users, but for the benefit of themselves. They save on not having to serve the content to unregistered users, keep the content on their platform, and encourage unregistered users to sign up.
The chief benefit of the open web was always permissive read access, not permissive write access.
But a lot of times the "benefit" is simply that people they know are there. Which is the problem with all these open platforms like Mastodon. People can get the argument that it is better in theory to use an open platform. But nobody wants to use a social platform alone.
This happened. In the Philippines, for example, almost all online interaction takes place on Facebook. FB isn't a gated community, but it allows people to set up their own gated communities by the services it layers on top of raw http and html. Another word is "walled gardens", and again, walled gardens are popular because unwalled gardens become slums.
The point is, libertarians, open standards advocates and "old web" nostalgists need to recognize why these services are popular, if they are going to have a chance of protecting the openness they care about.