| ▲ | mg 2 hours ago |
| I always wanted something like a "History of human progress" which when zoomed out shows me something like this: -2000000 Stone tools
-1000000 Using fire
-6000 Metal tools
-6000 Agriculture
-4000 Writing
1550 Printing
1888 Telephones
1888 Cars
1903 Planes
1941 Penicillin
1941 First computer
1982 Homecomputers
1983 Mobile phones
1990 The internet
2001 Wikipedia
2004 Facebook
2007 IPhone
2022 ChatGPT
And then I can zoom in on particular areas of time and see smaller milestones. |
|
| ▲ | epaga 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I actually made something quite similar to this with a few friends as an app 14 years ago using Wikipedia data. We called it LineTime, it was a fun little project! (Wow, I even found our video from back then...and man, that really was a LONG time ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW__WZ6pxJ8) |
|
| ▲ | Jolter 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Facebook was not ”human progress”. Future historians will point to its founding as a pivotal point of regression of democracy and humanity. |
| |
| ▲ | pell an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | In a grand view removed 1000 years from now the introduction of digital communication and their network effects must have been pivotal though even if it was in a negative way (which very well may be). I just doubt that would then be a point about Facebook specifically as this is just a tiny slice of that era, I think. | | | |
| ▲ | foofoo12 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's the reverse of the Cloaca Maxima, the Roman empire sewage system. Facebook is where unprocessed sewage is fed back to the people, straight into their hands. | | | |
| ▲ | mg an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I put Facebook up there to point towards the beginning of social media. | | |
| ▲ | Jolter an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Social media was "progress" in the same sense that atomic weapons were. They certainly have their proponents, and they certainly led to measurable effects on society, so I agree their inventions were important. But "progress"? | |
| ▲ | krapp an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | There was social media before Facebook, though. | | |
| ▲ | mg an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, but I think it makes a nice view to point to some first popular instance of something. Otherwise everything becomes fuzzy. For example, there was AI in the 60s. But ChatGPT was the first that achieved mass adoption. | |
| ▲ | Jolter an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think if social media is WW1, then the launch of Facebook will be considered as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Not in itself sufficient, but a point that really got some important balls rolling. | | |
| ▲ | hnbad an hour ago | parent [-] | | That wouldn't be the foundation of Facebook, that would be Facebook introducing the algorithmic timeline. Remember that Facebook explicitly considered it a success because it increased "engagement" while the vast majority of its users reacted negatively to it and when commenting on it indicated that it made them feel worse, that it negatively transformed the kind of social interactions they had on the platform and that it was detrimental to their mental health (because previously Facebook had been centered on 1-to-1 and many-to-1 interactions between peers and now was about 1-to-many interactions with an audience - something I guess Google tried to mitigate in its own social media experiment somewhat unsuccessfully by letting you group your "friends" into "circles"). The revolutionary change that made Facebook uniquely successful wasn't being a social media platform, it was forcing its users (who were so far treating it as a way to keep in touch with acquaintances, old friends and distant family) to compete for each other's attention and offering corporations the opportunity to join that competition - all the while retaining the messaging that the platform is about "social" interactions between peers. And of course mining the everliving #### out of their users' data while non-consensually tracking them across the entire web without their knowledge. But the "attention is the currency in the marketplace of ideas" concept they launched pretty much defined all "social media" companies from that point on, which is why we nowadays often forget the term used to be much more appropriate in the past (although often constrained to a crowd of very technical nerds). Oh, and of course they very successfully killed much of the tradition of the Open Web by encouraging a walled garden approach even when it required them to actively defraud their advertisers by lying about the performance of video content. But I think the trophy for launching that extinction event belongs to Apple when they pivoted away from the original web-first concept for the iPhone to the proprietary App Store. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | paulirish 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Makes me think of the Histomap, designed in 1931. It's an attractive design for history over a timeseries: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/... In 1942 he did one for Evolution which is closer to your pitch (log scale Y axis, etc): https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~2... |
|
| ▲ | Klaster_1 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://www.historicaltechtree.com |
| |
| ▲ | mg an hour ago | parent [-] | | This misses the overview. It has lots and lots of technologies all at the same size. And no way to zoom out. | | |
| ▲ | MrsPeaches 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It's not ideal, but you can look at the bottom bar and get a sense of density of innovation over a certain time period. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |