Hi Rika,

maybe it is just a generational thing, but I feel like the article, while 
having a somewhat valid core theory, leaves out the very important part of 
how the web, who uses it and the perception of it has in general changed 
over time in favour of becoming a rant about how back then everything was 
so much simpler, but yet elite because you had to have the time, money and 
willingness to access the web, make the effort to learn how to and create 
webpages by hand and host them. Listing things that the web did not have 
back then in a way that makes it feel like it is a point of pride and 
having a dig at how not everyone back then did have the desire to share 
personal things as if everyone now wants to, makes it at least to me seem 
less like an honest discussion and reminds me more of the stereotypical old 
man yelling at the kids to get off his lawn.

No we are not making it too easy to use the web, we give more people access 
to it not only as users, but also as creators. Which in my opinion makes 
the web less boring because while blogs/websites may look from similar to 
completely the same the content can still be very interesting depending on 
the creator and ones own interests.
Saying that a CMS like Wordpress or more dedicates sites like Livejournal 
or Blogger restricts creativity in general is also not fully true, since it 
assumes everyone deep down wants to have this full creativity instead of 
using such options to concentrate on what they are really interested in and 
want to share. Yes it can restrict creativity, but these restrictions and 
trying to work around it can also lead to either new things and ideas or to 
someone moving from the easier to the harder solution when their needs are 
better met.

Tiddlywiki itself can be used as an example for this. It works a certain 
way with a given set of macros and plugins out of the box. For some people 
this is fully enough, while others drift of into various ways of 
customization, both by using things someone has already created and shared 
as it fulfills the same need/wish or by customizing things themselves. 
Looking into tiddlywiki's customization options can be great especially if 
it feels like there is something missing, but not everyone needs it.

Also I am leaving Facebook/Twitter/other social media website of the day 
out of this discussion because of the social expectations for people to not 
only have an account there, but also to be to a certain extant active on it.

Kind Regards,
Felicia

P.S.: While not necessarily fully on topic I got reminded of this article 
while reading the article above and landing on the list of all the things 
they did not have back then, since it captures quite well how crazy modern 
web development can look from a beginner's/outsider's perspective: 
https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-2016-d3a717dd577f. 
<https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-2016-d3a717dd577f>


On Thursday, 22 October 2020 18:34:37 UTC+2, Rika Sukenik wrote:
>
> hey all, I came across this article called "how the blog broke the web. 
> https://stackingthebricks.com/how-blogs-broke-the-web/
>
> I found it to be a fascinating expose of how the web became boring once 
> services like Livejournal and Blogger made it easy for people to create 
> journals, which in turn stifled creativity by templatizing journal entries. 
> It got my gears turning to one, Wordpress; and two, today's trend of 'no 
> code' webpages. Are we stifling creativity by making it *too *easy to use 
> the Web? Are we doomed to live in a world of Tic Toc videos? And lastly, it 
> got me thinking about my tiddlywiki and the customization options available 
> that I haven't spent much time exploring yet :)
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/f6b1a84a-30f1-42dd-94d8-d694c2e27570o%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to