It is a discussion that I don't believe has a defined answer or endpoint. From my perspective, I see a platform as being able to always stay alive if it so chooses to keep its doors (or domain) open. The probe of upkeep and money will eventually be the downfall of an unprofitable platform, but theoretically, the only way a platform or program can die is if the plug is pulled by the creators themselves.

I am surprised to see that many former employees argue against the notion that Friendster's scaling issue was the cause of its death. This was my first assumption after reading about slow loading times at the beginning of the article. I believe I find this so feasible as an answer because in current day, slow loading time DOES spell death for your platform. We have become accustomed to instant accommodation in our internet use, but it is most likely true that back then, many of the social platforms had to deal with this issue, so it doesn't quite fully explain why Friendster failed.

In the case of internet artefacts, I've seen death referred to not as a platform or internet space being unusable or non-functioning, but as a prediction of such due to a lower user-base or lower overall interaction with a larger collection. I see this with online forums especially, being labeled as "dead" if there is a significant period with little activity. In my experience I have seen a difference between a platform being "dead" and simply "over". Dead in the technological sense brings a sense of incompleteness, with the idea that it could still "come back to life".

This is what I see most often with platforms today. Social platforms like Instagram and Facebook have had many funerals, though they keep coming back through means of restructuring and re-vamping features. One could say this makes it a different platform entirely, with the death of the old version being complete, and what we see today is a new version with the same name but without the same feeling or purpose.

I cannot blame Friendster for this, as it is difficult to optimize for scale so quickly when your platform has enormous success, larger than was planned for or expected. I do think there is always a window to either adapt or sink, being flexible and seeking creative solutions that I don't believe Friendster had the development team for.

The Fair Labor Standards Act was created in 1938, which makes it confusing to me why AOL did not realize they were in violation of this when working volunteers extreme hours and putting them at work expectations of an employee. This shows me that what some companies feel they can get away with, they will do regardless of moral perspectives. I look at the other end of the story, where what started as innocent volunteer work may have gotten out of control. I must assume that AOL knows the laws and were attempting a loophole of exploitation.

The obvious solution to me is hiring the remote staff outright, but the real dilemma as Gardiner says, is maintaining control of the volunteers without losing any money. They wanted to continue with the free labor deal that had been gifted, but what comes with that is the freedom to volunteer out of passion and in a way that allows flexibility. The management of a large company such as AOL would make it easy to lose sight of that perspective.

I can see the perspective of a gift economy of information when it comes to early Internet. This was probably a magical time of possibilities to most people that we take for granted today. When I compare this to my passionate hobbies, I am always more than willing to be helpful and inventive for free because the reward is the novelty seeing the progress and results of something creatively new. That is what the internet was before 1998, a sandbox playground where anything could be created that hadn't previously existed.

The exploitation of the internet's "pioneer" hobbyists and experts is something that could only be done in this early state of experimentation. In current day, it would be difficult and possibly illegal for a company as large as AOL to hire volunteer workers. The aspects of these jobs that are still not fully automated are now seen as valid customer service positions that anyone would expect to be compensated for.

I take for granted how many of these processes are now automated. In the early days of internet, the scaling of mass use was undoubtedly more than anyone could handle using manpower. This was an unmatched level of growth that we haven't seen with any other technology, it has become integrated into all previous and future mediums.

The idea of abandoning the term "internet" makes sense to me, as it has grown far beyond what we originally meant when using the term. It is no longer a collection of information neatly boxed into domains, it is an experience that I think the current term "metaverse" fits into. This term is being hoarded by certain companies such as Meta, but it is really a perfect term to encompass our digitally networked lives.

This is an intriguing way of imagining the Internet. It begs the question of what the use of an instant, constant interactive feedback system would look like. Do we have anything mirroring that today? And even so, it is less surprising and more of a means-to-end understanding; users know what intention they have and they use the Internet with that intention leading their actions. Video chatting sites where you are matched with a random person is the only example of this "instant constant interactive feedback" I can think of.

This quote highlights the separation between the medium (or vehicle) and it's driver. When we speculate the future of the Internet, it is a reflection of our own idealistic goals, which will heavily differ from person to person. The culmination of those who are shaping the development of the Internet will always include all of these parties, and will depend on which one of these parties create the most influence.

It is true that our global access to sharing information through the internet has disrupted almost every established industry. Consumers have reclaimed their agency and discernment, forcing any outdated systems out of rigidity. The internet has moved our society forward socially and culturally in empowering ways.

It is interesting to think about the perspective of the government during the start of the Internet age. This was unprecedented, with no blueprint of how to model and structure such a vast sea of information. There was no one technically qualified to properly handle this issue, so to see the cause and effect of the decisions made by government early on is fascinating from the perspective of present-day.

Thursday night having the largest number of viewers is surprising data. I expected the most coveted timeslots to be during the weekend when many people have a leisure day off of work.

I understand why Diller wanted to create another network to compete although at first glance it seems like a bad investment. If he was able to resuscitate the film division of Fox, then there would be no reason to believe he cannot do the same thing with network television.

I hadn't considered the themes and audiences specific networks target with their programming. The need to constantly adapt to the decline of network television viewership means networks must choose to either experiment and risk losing money in hopes of coming up with a show that stands out and brings in a cult audience, or play it safe and accept a slow decline.

The end of the network era was imminent; as technology and our interconnectivity continued to evolve, there would be less dependence on broadcast television as a primary source of information and digital content.

It is interesting to see Hilmes' predictions ring true even in current day where network television has continued to decline due to the prominence of streaming and social network sites like Youtube and Tiktok.

The politics of the entertainment industry would lead me to believe that there are contributors who did not receive credit for their work, especially considering the power of people like Desi Arnaz who gave himself an executive producer credit despite it being an inaccurate title.

I was unaware that I Love Lucy served as such a transformative program for the television industry. There are certain regulations in present time for what can/cannot be shown on TV, which leads me to wonder what allows a program to break through the "taboo" in the way I Love Lucy did.