How the Creator Economy Destroyed the Internet

Posted by ecliptik 1 day ago

Counter83Comment38OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by themafia 1 day ago

> How the creator economy destroyed the internet

Let's put the blame where it belongs. Monopolistic companies destroyed the internet.

> This is the media ecosystem we live in now — a supercharged shopping system that thrives on outrage, dominates the culture, and resists any real scrutiny because no one’s really in charge

That's the media ecosystem you've lived in your entire life. The internet, as always, just scaled up what we already had.

Comment by swatcoder 1 day ago

The media ecosystem many of us had lived in included that but was not almost entirely that.

We had local newspapers, weeklies, and magazines, with local owners and editors, printing at local print shops, subsidized by local advertisers, dropped in boxes and stacked at local community hubs by local kids. Same for local radio stations and local television networks, although these had such high capital and regulation requirements that many of them were already being soaked up into larger networks more quickly.

As the online stuff emerged, we had local BBS's, and local forums and websites and blogs operated by local people, made known through the above local media channels or just through word of mouth.

Writers and editors and artists and merchants would be real people that circulated in the community, who would encounter readers/viewers/consumers face to face. Earnest small businesses that served a niche in the community could call up and get a reasonable price for an ad slot or classified listing without always having to bid in an auction against against an national brand with an effectively unlimited budget.

The last 10-20 years of the Internet, of social media and consolidation and the "Creator Economy", didn't just "scale up what we already had" -- it scaled up one small thing that we already had and displaced more or less everything else.

Comment by pkaye 1 day ago

Craigslist killed off the classified section which was a big income source for newspapers. People didn't mind because Craigslist was free for most users.

Comment by CodingJeebus 1 day ago

For real. I used think that society really suffered from a fractured media ecosystem compared to the monolithic pre-internet media era until I learned about how the US gov used the media to sway public opinion on invading Iraq back in 2003.

I don’t know if the current media environment is better than what we had then, but it’s pretty foolish to think that it’s automatically worse based on US foreign policy going back the last 50 years alone.

Comment by drpepper42 1 day ago

[dead]

Comment by rtkwe 1 day ago

IMO this really misses the changes that the democratization of access to attention and media caused. Anyone being able to directly reach anyone is a massive change from the gate-kept pre-internet media landscape.

Comment by idle_zealot 1 day ago

> Anyone being able to directly reach anyone is a massive change from the gate-kept pre-internet media landscape.

Sure, but how are we supposed to disentangle this change from the concurrent growth of algorithmic feeds driving what people see? I have no doubt that democratization of communication would have social effects on its own, but we don't really know what those would be sans the simultaneous centralizing effect that dominant social media companies impose.

Comment by rtkwe 1 day ago

I think it's pretty easy to see on the face of it that a direct access for anyone to potentially reach everyone is a massive change from a system where that gets filtered through media companies. We don't really have to decide how much of which effect we attribute to that it's a fundamental reordering of the ecosystem of media production and consumption.

It was even easier before genAI and NLP where you could reliably say they're not really putting forward precise variants of genres because there just wasn't the capability of distinguishing (and still to this day I think they'd have trouble) genuine vs bait versions of videos. I think people want to believe the algorithm is more manipulated than it is generally because it serves a bunch of junk and it's more appealing to believe it's being pushed rather than that's just what people consume a lot of.

For a completely anecdotal bit of anecdata I've had good luck over the years with stuff like the Youtube algorithm because I've been fairly judicious with the "don't show me this" button(s) and I habitually watch stuff I know is pure junk food in an incognito window instead of on my 'main' feed.

Comment by cal_dent 1 day ago

I tend to agree on your algorithm point. But one distinction, which i think is a valid one, is that the algorithm is designed to over correct to what people's impulses are and that is is a design choice so there is a "guiding" principle there.

i.e. selecting for what people linger on rather than what they click for instance. People might stare at a car crash in passing but that isn't exactly the same as what they want but algorithm design choices means that it reflects that as a genuine want. And the resulting feedback loop means more people start doing car crash content and ultimately over time narrows what is produced

Comment by bogwog 1 day ago

> Let's put the blame where it belongs. Monopolistic companies destroyed the internet.

This is also true for more than just the internet.

Comment by jrm4 1 day ago

True, and I trust then that we look toward what actually fixes this, which is (boring) regulation and anti-trust work.

It's been done before, time to revamp for a new generation.

Comment by rectang 1 day ago

> Copycat Pirouette Skorts have been sold on Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, TikTok Shop, DHGate, Temu, Shein, and countless other fly-by-night storefronts that will seemingly disappear as quickly as they popped up.

Are there any moves afoot to adjust laws to make "marketplace" websites liable for the actions of sellers?

Illegitimate knockoffs would be less of an issue if you had to go to independent websites to find them.

Comment by burningChrome 1 day ago

>> Illegitimate knockoffs would be less of an issue if you had to go to independent websites to find them.

There's tons of counterfeit stuff on Amazon. I'm at the point now where I avoid Amazon because the last five things I bought there were all counterfeit and the products were not limited to one industry. They were across areas you wouldn't think you'd counterfeit stuff.

Comment by derefr 1 day ago

Apparently Amazon is starting to do something about this. They've recently introduced two filtering toggles:

- a "Premium Brands" toggle, that seemingly filters down to just a hand-curated list of known brands per category

- a "Top Brands" toggle, that seemingly applies some heuristic to filter out listings by companies that haven't accrued enough aggregate "experience points" (some formula like "product-listing-age times product rating", per listing?) across all their listings. Which makes it actively counterproductive to create a new random six-letter fly-by-night brand for each listing, while still allowing new brands to organically "grow into" relevance.

Comment by paradox460 1 day ago

Maybe they could add a filter which removes items from brands with gibberish titles. No, I don't want to buy something from zxutringly or qorduger or any similar nonsense

Comment by derefr 1 day ago

Define "gibberish title." It's harder than you think!

For example, there's a (Shenzhen-based, but well-established in the US market) 3D printer vendor called "Elegoo." Their name was (apparently...) chosen as an abbreviation of "Electronics with a Googol applications." Does your filter block them?

Comment by em-bee 21 hours ago

chinese speakers in particular have a hard time recognizing what kind of names make sense in the english language. mind you, we would have an equally hard time to come up with chinese names that don't sound weird to native speakers.

Comment by LorenPechtel 1 day ago

Sounds like a very good idea, although I haven't noticed it yet. So often you are buried in garbage hits.

And they also need to cut it out with the comingled inventory from the new guys!

Comment by rtkwe 1 day ago

I'm not sure there's a way to do that, there's no real way for a platform to definitively know if you're selling legitimate items or not and sellers are legitimately allowed to resell any legit items they have bought so there's not even a definitive list of "who's allowed to sell product X" they could query to know.

Comment by ndriscoll 1 day ago

I don't think anyone is alleging that these are illegitimate? It sounds like it's just copying the style, but not pretending to be the original/infringing on any trademark or anything.

Comment by rectang 1 day ago

Yes, the article alleges that the dupes are illegitimate:

> They simply use Popflex’s copyrighted images without permission, sometimes editing the color of the skort in the photo to fit the listing. In May 2025 alone, Popflex counted 461 listings it believes infringe on its Pirouette Skort design patent, but it’s still a drop in the bucket of the thousands that Ho has encountered just by doing reverse image searches.

Comment by stackskipton 1 day ago

I mean, the law already holds shops accountable, but problem is regulators let Amazon get away with "We are a marketplace" despite them actually selling stuff as first party and allowing third parties use their logistics and warehouses.

Comment by rectang 1 day ago

The "marketplace" loophole which allows a few dominant websites to insulate themselves from consequences for illegitimate sales is at the root of the consolidation decried in the top-level article.

Comment by dale_glass 1 day ago

I don't think I've seen a web design this garish even on Geocities.

It's like somebody set out to do what the 90s Geocities couldn't, using modern tech.

Comment by tzs 1 day ago

That's not garish.

This is garish: https://yvettesbridalformal.p1r8.net/

Comment by acessoproibido 1 day ago

This is genius tbh a work of art

Comment by rickydroll 1 day ago

Is this another example of we did it because we could, but didn't ask whether we should?

Comment by Abekkus 1 day ago

This CSS is specific to the article. Not the same across the site.

Comment by acessoproibido 1 day ago

I quite like it, really fitting for the topic too

Comment by anon_cow1111 1 day ago

Ngl, I had a split second of "oh damn did I just pick up a url hijacker somewhere?" Especially with awkward gifs at the bottom.

Comment by dylan604 1 day ago

90s Geocities sites never looked that clean.

Comment by futuraperdita 1 day ago

> It's like somebody set out to do what the 90s Geocities couldn't, using modern tech.

This style is basically a sort of nostalgiacore and that's exactly what it's trying to do. It's heavily influenced by Web 1.0 and the time-smear of 1990s-2000s early Web culture.

Comment by dyauspitr 1 day ago

Probably a matter of taste. I like it, it’s clean.

Comment by linksnapzz 1 day ago

Warning: "Vox Media" property.

Comment by Sivart13 1 day ago

...so?

Comment by skybrian 1 day ago

Warning: flashing images, paywalled

Comment by tamimio 1 day ago

As soon as you “monetize” something, you remove the fun out of it, it’s really that simple.

Comment by ChrisArchitect 1 day ago

Repackaged article collection:

July https://www.theverge.com/cs/features/709635/knock-it-off (https://archive.ph/Y0dvZ)

Nov https://www.theverge.com/cs/features/804409/perez-hilton-liv... (https://archive.ph/fuXL4)

Nov https://www.theverge.com/cs/features/818380/college-students... (https://archive.ph/Edc6G)

Dec https://www.theverge.com/cs/features/836456/influencers-tikt... (https://archive.ph/Atrlc)

Comment by 0manrho 1 day ago

What the eye-fuck is this design?

Also, that's rich coming The Verge/Vox. Pot, meet Kettle.