How does picrel make you feel?

what do they mean about Microsoft? Bing?

>t. newfag

>Yahoo on the list
whaaat

How does yahoo, a completely useless site, have more visits than Amazon, a site that actually does shit?

boomers who grew up with it?

Tendency of capital to concentrate. Nothing new, sadly.

Mozilla used to default to Yahoo back in those days, I believe.

>You could spend hours just finding random weird sites made by a sole creator.
sorry user, old internet was shit: no real content (internet was just "titlenames and one photo" ), everybody pretend be Lain-fanboys, everybody using Geocities because they cannot pay decent hosting

The golden age of internet is 2003-2011
Prove me wrong

I think it's what they call "news portal" and shit. And every MS browser comes with it as the default page and normies don't change it. (Also probably Windows tech support pages)

bu,p

Does anyone want to make a tech brands version of this? Or does it already exits?

Attached: 1504574746620.jpg (2400x1485, 1.05M)

this image is pure bullshit tho

It's not. All these select few umbrella companies own all those brands.

There was one I remember showing an absolute fucking forest of adtech companies, but I don't have it to hand.

I bet you're one of those fags who pays a couple bucks extra for tylenol even though the store-brand/no-brand ibuprofen right next to it is FDA-certified to be completely identical.

Fuck i meant anti-net neutrality

No but I have one about media. Notice how since then Disney gobbled Fox up, and CBS and Viacom might merge.

Attached: 3.png (622x588, 448K)

Tylenol is acetomeniphine (or however it's spelled) not ibuprofen fucking idiot

How many of those are owned by Jews? Asking for a friend.

Didn't know General Electric owned any media companies.

That pic is pure misinformation, all that happened in the span of these 7 years is that the number of users in the internet increased dramatically, it all coincides with the release of the iPhone, since that's when a lot of casual, non-tech oriented consumers started buying web-enabled "smart" devices
Naturally most of the internet users these days are extremely casual and so they only visit 1-5 different sites, since sites like Facebook and services like Google allow easy and quick access to information relevant to the user they feel no need to surf
Also the fact that the internet in general became much more multilingual people from different nations are no longer bound to their country-specific websites and can make use of the same services as someone from the US
Web surfing is also completely overrated, you can still find quirky sites, most of the time back then all you'd find is someone's edgy gif-filled site with nothing of value on it except a ton of audio-enabled zany emoticon banners that screamed at you when you moused over them and metallica.mp3.exe downloads

how the fuck is Microsoft so big? surely they aren't talking about Microsoft.com?

>Someone doesn't know how the pareto distribution works on systems that sort and cull themselves over time.

No one 'forced' the internet to become like this. No government or google truly had a world-domination agenda like this. The internet back in the day also didn't allow for singular individuals to be broadcasted over the entire internet like what we call the "15 minutes of fame". and no one is stopping you from launching a 1990 text based website with consumer internet ( Which is several times faster now )

Attached: Pareto_Dist.jpg (826x438, 31K)

>When the same conclusion is drawn three times without realising its a natual law that you can't prevent

>you can't prevent
>what are laws

You think at any point a law could have prevented the distribution from evolving like it has done?

Fine, Just do it without creating Literally North Korea Internet.

Indifferent? Why should I care that a company makes a popular website that grew in traffic?

The same sites I went to a decade ago are still there and I still visit most of them aside from ones that serve no purpose to me anymore since I aged and outgrew them.

>inanimate objects tend to congregate

>We're running towards the future where the whole world is run by megacorporations and democratic nations are just shallow fronts to reduce immigration

Corporate proxy wars, assassinations and espionage when?

Attached: netrunner.jpg (305x275, 72K)

Didn't T.J. warn about this when people moved away from FidoNet and BBS and onto the web?

That infographic fails to mention that the amount of people who use the internet has also grown exponentially.

What your brain fails to grasp is that the infographic talks about percentage of web traffic not raw numbers.

It should be updated, in 2018 it should be even more consolidated.
I actually like it this way though. No more slow ugly confusing websites, everything is a neat twitter, subreddit or tumblr.

Nowhere nearly as many Irishmen, I can tell you that much.

Attached: Good+old+hibernian+conspiracy+you+ready+to+take+the+green+_cae50e895a6fe0c0f6ecdac1795d5571.jpg (748x2009, 533K)

I think you misunderstand the Pareto principle. It's not a "natural law" any more than other forms of distribution, like the old normal curve. These surprisingly common distributions might be informally called "laws" because of their strangely high incidence, but we can't call them laws in as much as we know absolutely jack shit about what causes them to be so frequent, and thus can't explain why this or that thing exhibits that distribution, and we sure as hell can't reliably predict which other things will exhibit them. Natural phenomena tend to have a normal curve and social phenomena tend to have a Pareto distribution, but there are plenty of exceptions to this case. The thing is, these whoa-dude mindfucks tend to have a high confirmation bias: you notice them clearly when you witness them, but pay no mind to all the times they don't. Lastly, it's possible, or rather likely, that the high frequency of these and some other distributions is due to a X factor that makes it all obvious in retrospect.

Also I'd say it's wrong to say no one forced the internet to become concentrated, seeing as it's the open objective of any of these media moguls to control as big a share as possible of their market.

I've seen the Pareto principle being brought up lately as a fallacy of appeal to nature by pundits seeking to normalize notions of social inequality. I would advise you to question both the knowledge and the honesty of these people.