The web is fucked and there’s nothing we can do about it. Kev Quirk looks back fondly at Web 1.0.

  • Isoprenoid@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The article wasn’t really about Web 1.0 as much as it was about the time that Web 1.0 was around. The author could remove “Web 1.0” and replace it with “late 1990s to early 2000s Internet”.

    That’s part of the problem.

    No, thats just the angle that the article wanted to take. Just because it ignores an aspect of something doesn’t mean that its position is moot.

    Are you asking for every article ever to have a section discussing accessibility? I’d rather we let the author speak their mind, and focus on what they want to say.

    • 0x1C3B00DA@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you asking for every article ever to have a section discussing accessibility?

      No. I’m asking that when they complain about how the modern web is “fucked” and web 1.0 was better, they don’t try to act like that is an absolute, since that’s an opinion that is not widely applicable.

      No, thats just the angle that the article wanted to take. Just because it ignores an aspect of something doesn’t mean that its position is moot.

      Ignoring part of a topic makes your argument weaker.

      • Isoprenoid@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        they don’t try to act like that is an absolute

        Again, to write an article means to cut out things that don’t matter to the core argument. You’re asking for the writer to complete a thesis.

        Ignoring part of a topic makes your argument weaker.

        And again, this is an opinion piece, not a well developed thesis. What you are asking for is both unreasonable and impractical when writing an opinion piece.