Wait, doesn't everyone use an ad blocker?
You already know the answer :). The answer is: no
In some sense, yes I know. But in another, the elderly neighbors who I help with computer issues even use an ad blocker.
Splitting the Web
171–180 of 201 posts
Re: Splitting the Web
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing unapproachable about a 100% static site with some server-rendered navigation elements, much like livejournal was in the early 2000s. Much like HN is today. Perfectly 'approachable' even on mobile devices. The only thing that makes sites like this and that 'unapproachable' is stunningly high (genuine, not stat-massaged) levels of functional illiteracy.
For people who are accustomed to clicking "new post" there's definitely something unapproachable about mediating the relationship between your DNS registrar and your hosting provider. I'm just saying that if it's gonna be a techies web and a non-techies web we ought to recognize that some of us tend toward toxic elitism and work to counteract it. As much as I enjoy being a Linux snob and a person with Stack Overflow…
This is an honest question, please treat it as such. What is toxic about the notion that some things just aren't for everyone and that's probably ok? Is there a moral or ethical requirement to pitch to the lowest common denominator and if so why?
Re: Splitting the Web
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gemini does not have UX, so it isn't "bad". That is better than having bad UX. Some client software might have bad UX, but that depends which client software you are using.
It doesn't have a UI but it definitely has a UX - TLS required, no embedded images or videos, very basic support for user input, etc. Theoretically a client could choose to ignore some of that but it's not really a Gemini client anymore. Straight from the FAQ, emphasis mine: > Rather than trying to decide whether Gemini is about turning the clock forward or backwards, it's better to think of it as trying to deliver a…
O, OK, I suppose I made a mistake, thank you for correcting me.
> TLS required
I don't like this I think it should be optional and a different URI scheme should be used for TLS vs non-TLS. The same port number could theoretically be used (due to the format of the TLS initial data, it cannot be confused with a valid Gemini request), but as far as I know the existing software (e.g. stunnel) does not do that.
> no embedded images or videos
I think it is good to not have embedded images and videos. You could have a user setting to display embedded images for local files only or to not display embedded images at all (I think this is similar to what the Gempub specification says).
> Theoretically a client could choose to ignore some of that but it's not really a Gemini client anymore.
I think it still can be Gemini client if it is still Gemini protocol and file format just as well.
Re: Splitting the Web
#174This post touched on something I was pondering recently: disappearing.
If users of alternative browsers (Firefox apparently being one now) are more likely to block analytics scripts and more with uBlock Origin (etc.) then we've fallen off the map insofar as tracking us goes. Does that mean these browsers are actually more popular than statistics suggest? Is there any way of knowing? I suppose Raymond Hill would have some idea from the ratio of user agents who download updates, but that's just one addon among many.
Not that I'm expecting more than an additional blip, but even that would give me joy.
Re: Splitting the Web
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, but there are many instances and you should be able to somehow make it automatically work with all of them when you access the URL (even in browsers that somehow do not render HTML). You could use but that only specifies that it is using Activty Stream and not that it is using Mastodon.
Absolutely - your browser should ideally handle it for you and offer to open any Mastodon link in the client of your choice. However, my comment was to indicate that this isn't an inherent issue with Mastodon or ActivityPub. It's just a 'plumbing' issue, a matter of the rest of the Web ecosystem catching up with the rapid pace of the Fediverse's development.
What should be needing then is standardized commands to indicate which APIs it implements (which might be more than one) for any kind of web app services that may be available on multiple instances on multiple servers, that you can identify them and be able to work. Unfortunately, it seem that some do not do that (including Fossil; I tried to tell them to add such a thing but they don't want to do; I run my own Fossil and would want to expose some command to indicate its presence instead of being forced to use the built-in user interface).
Re: Splitting the Web
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's an extremist framing. I see it as expressing a feeling. "It feels like it's us vs them". I don't know, I understand "extremist" as a pretty serious criticism ("I don't want to listen to that guy, he is an extremist"). But the author doesn't call for invading the Capitol, he is merely saying that he doesn't like how the commercial Web evolved. Maybe it's more of a "purist" framing?
Purism is an extreme position. Its extremism by setting it up as all or nothing, us vs them, or any other position that excludes the middle and only leaves the extreme positions. I literally have no idea why invading capitols is topical for javascript in web pages, nor how such a comparison is relevant, so I can't comment on that.
I guess my point is that (the way I understand it) the author says that he feels like the web is splitting: on the one hand, those who are fine with the commercial web and ads, even if it means that they probably miss on some stuff that does not get the same marketing power. On the other hand, those who are not fine with it and run ad blockers and privacy tools, even if it means that they miss on some stuff that is only available through surveillance capitalism.
I don't know if we can say that a feeling (which is a descriptive concept) is "extremist". Then the author says that he feels like he is on the side of the ad blockers. Again, I don't see that as extremism. He is not saying "I will never open a commercial website in my life, and I strongly believe nobody should do it". He is saying "well if a commercial website works under my conditions, it's fine, but if they make sure to block me access because I don't want their ads, then I will live without their website".
Re: Splitting the Web
#177The analogy of "splinternet" to "Babelization" is quite fitting and brings to mind the story of the Tower of Babel, where linguistic diversity led to communication breakdown. Applying this concept to the internet highlights the potential consequences of isolating information and communication based on geographical or political boundaries.
Re: Splitting the Web
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
You clearly haven't seen the sites that demand JavaShit just to load JPGs and PNGs that you told the browser to open directly. As in pointing the browser at a JPG or PNG and getting redirected to a page with JavaShit to load that JPG or PNG. Why? Fuck if I know, I don't live in the same universe as whoever wrote and published that literal garbage.
I recently got a CD-rom from a hospital containing X-rays of my leg to share with my doctor. Upon finding a computer with a functioning optical drive I was dismayed to discover that the CD-rom contained not 3 simple images of the bones in my leg, but almost 400 megabytes of impenetrable binary data in over 30 nested directories and an .exe called MedicalImageViewer which I was unable to run on the latest version of W…
Guess what your doctor does to look at your X-rays: The chance is high that he'll just execute the .exe file on the CD-Rom too. I've witnessed that already multiple times and always cringe, because of the obvious security implications. It'd be so straight-forward to compromise a doctors office by handing them over a different CD-Rom with malware instead.
Re: Splitting the Web
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate when a official government organisation that has their own website still uses twitter and facebook to make important announcements. The assumption all citizens use those private services is wrong and dangerous.
Yes, this. Of course, there are no alternatives. EU could probably promote some instance of Mastodon as mandatory.
Official Mastodon instance for EU institutions:
Re: Splitting the Web
#180From the article: But, increasingly, I feel less and less like an outsider. It’s not me. It’s people living for and by advertising who are the outsiders. They are the one destroying everything they touch, including the planet. They are the sick psychos and I don’t want them in my life anymore. My thoughts exactly. Like the author, I don't have patience for glossy websites anymore. If a site needs third-party JS to be…
More than not having patience for the glossy websites anymore, I find myself trusting them less too. If I visit a company website and it's covered in pictures, big shiny buttons, flashy menus, and those damn "helper" bots, there's a solid chance it hasn't been updated in a few years and won't have any useful information.