unit

In March 1989 Tim-Berners Lee published The proposal that would define the Internet and the web as we know them today. This document based everything on hypertext, “readable information for human being and linked unlimitedly.” The basic internet unit and the web. The links soon became that cement that linked all the information and connected it. They allowed to jump from a content to another, and that led us to that original chaotic, anarchic and wonderful website. And Google arrived. This giant triumphed where others did not just do it. The martemágnum of content and information needed a certain organization, a certain order, and Google built its empire by responding to that problem. For many years the company was clear exponent of the value of the links: its own results page was an ode to that concept. They were basically links. That was wonderful, and Google was even able to understand the impossible and to know that when we were looking for “waterchu bi fri” The video we wanted from Queen. A “prominent fragment” or “featured snippet” by Google. Fixed: it is not very different from the answers generated by AI, although in this case Google simply copied and glued párara from the original source, which linked at the bottom of that box. You don’t need (so many) links. Over time, the approach changed and Google tried to lock us more and more in its search engine so that we would not leave it. It was about answer our questions directly With his “featured snippets” (“prominent fragments“), the small text boxes that appeared when making certain searches. This system was fantastic for the user – which many times found the answer he was looking for – and for Google – more retention, more advertising he could show – but not for the original creators of those contents of which Google” stole “the information. The 1989 Berners-Lee document already pointed to hypertext documents with links as a fundamental component. Hello, web. Source: W3.org. You are taking advantage of my work. That, among other things, ended up causing an angry protest by media and content creators, which demanded Google News and other links of links that paid for the contents that copied and linked. It was the first iteration (there is another different and more recent) of the “Google Rate“And the Canon Aede included as part of the Intellectual Property Law. That didn’t end well: Google News hill In Spain For 8 years because Google and others forced them to “pay to link.” The service returned with an iceta law that allowed Google dodge those payments and negotiate case by case to reach agreements. It is curious how seven years ago who subscribed claimed that Google and Facebook did have to pay for those contents, and now be The same thing with the AI. But I’m getting ahead of the matter. Toxic links. The evolution of the Google search engine, which previously represented the maximum exponent of a website in which the links were its main value, has been worrying. For many of us Google has broken its own search enginenot to go against the links, but to contaminate them. SEO and sponsored links have ended up taking over the experience, and that was already an important blow to the web. We did not click not because there were no links, but because we did not fix too much from a results page that is too manipulated. The Huffington Post (now, the Huffpost) was born in the face of Facebook. They survived; Others like Buzzfeed no. Social networks were good before being bad. The arrival of social networks caused the links to be even more important, and in fact we live an explosion of content – and a lot of clickbait – and the birth of the cult of Facebook by media Like the missing Buzzfeed. Then they realized something: sending people to external websites was not interesting. The interesting thing was to keep users locked on your platform. Facebook can be criticized many things, but at least the platform never stopped using links. A cousin of his was born with a much more perverse attitude. Instagram and open war against links. When Instagram was born he did it as a fantastic Flickr successor and other services for photographers. Soon it became the epitome of “A picture is worth a thousand words”, and although it was possible to accompany each image of a text, what was prohibited was to include clicking links. Except in very specific sections (Like the bio of the user), link was and is strictly prohibited. It was unusual. Social networks as walled gardens. Soon the social networks realized – as before Google had done – that the links were against them, and that the best thing they could do was lock us all in their respective walled gardens. What Instagram raised was just the principle of a worrying derives towards those silos of algorithmic content: Tiktok That line followed and only some verified users can include links to their videos. Twitter, who was born as a platform to share reflections and links, also changed with the arrival of Elon Musk, andNemeligo declared of the media. The tycoon arrived APRoibrate links to other social networks, and then CHe would ontaminate the experience With its algorithm in addition to DIt is to keep the links In X because “they don’t attract so much attention.” Or rather, so that you were not from X. Snapchat, somewhat less popular but equally relevant, also raised an aggressive policy against links. Offers limited options To share links, and their absolute focus on mobiles (and not to the web and their links) is patent: he launched its web version in 2022, 11 years after its creation. AI arrives. The role of the links has therefore been co -fled on platforms and social networks, and what we already saw with Google and its Snippets now threatens to be the norm in the chatbots that They … Read more