This is a truly poor article that says much but contains little in terms of original and interesting thinking. I regret having read it.

I keep hearing that "the web is broken". But how exactly? What parts are broken in a way that makes it worse than it used to be at some point? I think people who write this just glorify the past. I don't want to go back. Not to the age of Flash ads that crashed the browser. Not to the age where people overused HTML frames and basic stuff like opening in a new window didn't work. Not to the age when every site used tables for layout, and they didn't work half of the time. Not to the time when every non-trivial application required Java and the whole computer froze even if you were one of the lucky ones who got it working. Not to IE-specific hacks and ActiveX. Not to image maps...

And content-wise, there is more content than at any point in time. So what's the issue?

And wrote this title

anyone else annoyed that these buzzwords are all hashtagged and cross linked to other blog articles, rather than defined? #OMN, #4norms, #dotcons - you can’t just make up a bunch of terms and then use them without explaining them to your audience. Wikipedia handles this nearly flawlessly by always offering a definition on the first usage.

Hashtag #mainstreaming? Hashtag #stupidindividualism?? I feel like this is just adding friction to the experience of reading this person’s content - if they feel that have something important to say, why choose this manner of presentation?