Jay Hoffmann

Tag: History of the Web

  • #20: The analog, human web

    I read Casey Netwon’s timely How platforms killed Pitchfork, which has a number of incisive and realistically cynical insights in it, all of which are relevant in the modern fractured and declining digital era. But one thing that’s kind of sticking with me is this passing observation:

    On one level it’s impressive that Spotify can perfectly capture my musical taste in a series of data points, and regurgitate it to me in a series of weekly playlists. But as good as it has gotten, I can’t remember the last time it pointed me to something I never expected I would like, but ultimately fell totally in love with.

    This isn’t the most original thought, but a lack of genuine and human-centered discovery does seem to be a significant void in today’s web. Ironically, as we construct algorithmically fortified communities designed to guide us towards our preferences, we become so much like automatons ourselves, steered only towards what we’ve already pre-established as our likes and dislikes. In its most extreme form, this leads to the creation of echo chambers. But it has other knock-on effects as well.

    In response, efforts to reclaim a smaller and more personal web are actually attempts to redefine discovery through the lens of human insights and curation. It’s the same impulse that’s leading some to reclaim the word and spirit of the Luddites. But as both sides dig in their trenches, the web divides more.

    Which is maybe ok. But it’s instigated a thought. Do we need two words to define these two very different ways.

    I’ve been thinking over a term for all of this, one that’s somewhat like the way ‘analog’ is to ‘digital,’ that can help differentiate the web crafted by a human touch from the one build by (and sometimes, for) robots. The term ‘analog’ was initially used to depict how electrical signals are transmitted via devices like telephones and record players, in stark contrast to a digital signal, which is encoded and subsequently decoded. But it has slowly gathered into an entire culture.

    What we need is a term—an ‘analog’ equivalent—that encapsulates the essence of the human web. The small web. The personalized web that’s an intentions reflection of our human imperfections laid bare for others to see and explore, and maybe, to discover. I’m going to do a bit of thinking on this one.


    A recent episode of ‘Why is this Happening’ with Chris Hayes featured Robinson Meyer discussing climate change. Somewhere in the middle was this intriguing tidbit

    the number one predictor of whether you have solar panels on your roof is whether your neighbor has them.

    Network effects abound.


    Thich Nhat Hanh on the meaning of true love:


    Loving-kindness is not only the desire to make someone happy, to bring joy to a beloved person; it is the ability to bring joy and happiness to the person you love, because even if your intention is to love this person, your love might make him or her suffer.

    Notes

    Check Asana
    Clear out Reeder
    Check Inbox Note
    Read through emails
    Go through “To Sort” In Raindrop
    Review projects in Obsidian
    Add to collections in Obsidian
    Set a weekly focus
    Publish Weeknote
  • #11: Navigating the end of year scaries

    There is a strange and unsettling feeling that happens in December, as time rushes forward and slows down all at once. And so it becomes a balancing act of sorts. Here are the kinds of things that I am personally trying to balance:

    • I have a really exciting new direction for History of the Web I’m trying to mock up right now
    • I’ve been trying to sell this damn dining room table on Facebook Marketplace (which, by the way, fuck Facebook Marketplace). It’s not going well.
    • Balancing a couple of client projects, and a fun internal one as well
    • Presents. We’re buying them, wrapping them, putting them under a tree. Trying to get ahead of it all this week.

    But anyway, I like to end the year with some focus and something new. And that energy is going to be put into what I have going on with the History of the Web right now. To mock up the site, I’ve been using WordPress’ full site editing a whole lot lately, and I want to write that up this week. The results have been… mixed, but I think it’s more liberating than it is limiting.

    The key is in the results, and I can often get bogged down in the details. Full Site Editing helps me to focus away from that and figure out solutions with what’s already there. It’s not perfect, but hey that was standing in the way of good anyway. By next month, I expect to have something out.


    I am getting to the end of reading (listening to) Bleak House. And as it all comes together in the final chapters, I’m struck by the emphasis on the power of the individual even inside an overwrought and broken down system. It is only through the compassion of John Jardynce that Ada and Esther are given a chance at all. It is only through the tenacity for truth of Mr Bucket that an innocent man does not go to jail. Sir Leicester’s final act with his wife is to forgive all, and Dickens pauses to praise this gesture:

    His noble earnestness, his fidelity, his gallant shielding of her, his generous conquest of his own wrong and his own pride for her sake, are simply honourable, manly, and true. Nothing less worthy can be seen through the lustre of such qualities in the commonest mechanic, nothing less worthy can be seen in the best-born gentleman. In such a light both aspire alike, both rise alike, both children of the dust shine equally.

    Much gets stuck in the mud in Bleak House. And those that embed themselves within government and the law and all manners of buereaucracy are eventually ground down by it. But those that cut through that, and simply act out of their own goodness (Jardynce, Woodcourt, Esther, Bucket, Mrs. Bagnet, etc.) are able to advance the world forward nonetheless. And that is a powerful message.


    Just one more thing to add. Michael Silverblatt’s interview with David Foster Wallace about Infinite Jest on the former’s radio program Bookworm. Silverblatt is a fantastic interviewer and immediately interrogates Wallace on the particularities of the novels structure, which he compares to fractals, and the journey to find the message inside of the book. And Wallace quotes from a similar refrain which is that his job is not only to challenge but to entertain, so despite the labyrinth of a plot and structure, he strove to fid clarity for his readers.


    Martha Nussbaum, on Proust, and a possible explanation for why the exact matches of dating profiles so often miss anyway:

    Intellect’s account of psychology lacks all sense of proportion and depth and importance… [Such a] cost-benefit analysis of the heart — the only comparative assessment of which intellect, by itself, is capable — is bound, Proust suggests, to miss differences of depth. Not only to miss them, but to impede their recognition. Cost-benefit analysis is a way of comforting oneself, of putting oneself in control by pretending that all losses can be made up by sufficient quantities of something else. This stratagem opposes the recognition of love — and, indeed, love itself.

    Notes

    Check Asana
    Clear out Reeder
    Check Inbox Note
    Read through emails
    Go through “To Sort” In Raindrop
    Set a weekly focus
    Publish Weeknote

    Stuff fro today:

    • Read brainpickings
    • Scorecard review
    • Bleak House Notes
    • $500 in index fund
    • Comic and book lists