> Your standalone web site is like a cactus in the middle of a vast desert nobody cares about
Yet, cacti thrive in the desert, uncaring about the opinions of others.
> in fact now at a mercy of Google's indexing policies.
Inherently, the Web doesn't carry "maximizing an audience" as a maxim. That's an expectation that the Web's denizens have come to believe in as a matter of principle: the only valuable reason to put anything online, is because you intend to cater to an audience.
That doesn't exclude owning a personal website that you'd just peruse for your own sake. In fact, the author writes as much:
> You can write at length, ramble nonsensically, and people can choose to read it or not. It’s about putting things out on the internet for yourself.
Like, sure, there are platforms where you could share cooking recipes. But maybe that's not something you want for yourself, for whatever reason, maybe you don't want to attract undue attention, and you just want to keep them in your own quiet corner of the Web, for yourself.
You might want to write for the sake of the craft of writing, and use the Web as your medium, rather then paper. Others happening to stumble on your work, is just a by-product of your choice to publish thoughts on the Web.
Maybe you don't care about search engines, and if you need someone to find your work, well, you can just hand them an URL.
From your perspective, all of that may sound horribly inefficient, and that's true, it is inefficient and not the right way to do things if your express goal were to cater to large audiences. But that doesn't make it any less valid an option to approach the Web.
> There is no bottom line here. It's all about economy and capitalism, which seem to always win.
Well, my argument is that the Web, such as it was, experienced an Eternal September with the advent of social media and mobile devices. Suddenly, everyone could reach an audience with nothing but a smartphone. And that notion caused millions, billions, flocking to those few central platforms that catered to this apparent want, creating a self-perpetuating feedback loop.
Whereas, do you thoughts and intentions really need to be shown in front of an audience of billions, just because that's possible now? Of course not.
Wanting to be like a cactus is perfectly valid, giving your thoughts a quiet spot in some corner of the Web you can call your own, not having to worry about likes, favorites, comments, shares or clicks. As long as doing so caters to your own intentions.
Yet, cacti thrive in the desert, uncaring about the opinions of others.
> in fact now at a mercy of Google's indexing policies.
Inherently, the Web doesn't carry "maximizing an audience" as a maxim. That's an expectation that the Web's denizens have come to believe in as a matter of principle: the only valuable reason to put anything online, is because you intend to cater to an audience.
That doesn't exclude owning a personal website that you'd just peruse for your own sake. In fact, the author writes as much:
> You can write at length, ramble nonsensically, and people can choose to read it or not. It’s about putting things out on the internet for yourself.
Like, sure, there are platforms where you could share cooking recipes. But maybe that's not something you want for yourself, for whatever reason, maybe you don't want to attract undue attention, and you just want to keep them in your own quiet corner of the Web, for yourself.
You might want to write for the sake of the craft of writing, and use the Web as your medium, rather then paper. Others happening to stumble on your work, is just a by-product of your choice to publish thoughts on the Web.
Maybe you don't care about search engines, and if you need someone to find your work, well, you can just hand them an URL.
From your perspective, all of that may sound horribly inefficient, and that's true, it is inefficient and not the right way to do things if your express goal were to cater to large audiences. But that doesn't make it any less valid an option to approach the Web.
> There is no bottom line here. It's all about economy and capitalism, which seem to always win.
Well, my argument is that the Web, such as it was, experienced an Eternal September with the advent of social media and mobile devices. Suddenly, everyone could reach an audience with nothing but a smartphone. And that notion caused millions, billions, flocking to those few central platforms that catered to this apparent want, creating a self-perpetuating feedback loop.
Whereas, do you thoughts and intentions really need to be shown in front of an audience of billions, just because that's possible now? Of course not.
Wanting to be like a cactus is perfectly valid, giving your thoughts a quiet spot in some corner of the Web you can call your own, not having to worry about likes, favorites, comments, shares or clicks. As long as doing so caters to your own intentions.