Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Splitting the Web

ploum.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 201 posts

Re: Splitting the Web

#181

Post by BlueTemplar »

casey2 wrote: post #82

>Most of the time, I don’t bother anymore. The link I clicked doesn’t open or is wrangled? Yep, I’m probably blocking some important third-party JavaScript. No, I don’t care. I’ve too much to read on a day anyway. More time for something else. This has been my browsing habit for a long while now. Sure if I need to add a macro or google some compiler flags to compile an OS, I'll do it. But fiddling with noscript when…

The little mini-game of "what third party script domains do I have to enable in uMatrix to make this website work" is starting to get really grating these days. Especially for payment processors.

Re: Splitting the Web

#182

Post by dirtyid »

8chanAnon wrote: post #2

From 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…

I just want unified reader mode experience for content oriented sites for consistent experience. I wouldn't mind some sort of AI constantly interpreting browser content in background and split out basic website in the foreground even if it involves wasteful amounts of computation. The way things are going, that's probably how to ensure adblock in the future.

Re: Splitting the Web

#183

Post by MattyRad »

RalfWausE wrote: post #130
Swizec wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I won't put up with 15mb downloads just to read some content Meanwhile my normie friends are sending me TikTok videos of people reading screenshots of Reddit comments posted to Instagram. Regular users absolutely do not care about any of this .

When i started to get into computers and later the internet my normie friends thought of that stuff as utterly pointless. Sure, they were sure that there was some use to computers in big businesses, replace the typewriters and make the life easyer for accountants, but everything else? Nah, nothing interesting for the wider populous, just nerd toys. The internet? Why should anyone want to write an email if you could s…

The corpo-web, I really like that term, it perfectly encapsulates the soullessness of the modern web. Is that term from something or did you come up with it yourself?

Re: Splitting the Web

#184

Post by forgetfreeman »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #161
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mostly agree, but I do think we owe it to the normies to make our part of the web approachable. You owe nothing to these traitors who actively sabotage the goals that you deem important.

They're victims of capitalism gone-astray, not traitors. If we abandon them we'll only have each other to talk to. I don't like us enough to do that. Besides, we have to deal with the consequences of their votes, so it's in our interests to oppose whoever would manipulate them because those manipulators are threats to things that we care about. Things like privacy, and the ability to control the devices that we "own"…

Your critique narrowly misses the mark. Nothing has gone astray with capitalism. This is the market doing market shit.

Re: Splitting the Web

#185

Post by TRiG_Ireland »

Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #92
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree, but I do think we owe it to the normies to make our part of the web approachable. I don't want to feel like we've fed them to the machine when maybe they wanted out and didn't know how.

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 a whole generation of gay men, the most important site on the web is Nifty, and that hardly looks slick! It's mostly Content-Type: text/plain.

Re: Splitting the Web

#186

Post by godshatter »

palata wrote: post #75
gochi wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that is metadata. It is just the data.

When we talk about "metadata", in the context of a messenger like Whatsapp, it refers to the data (metadata is data) around the actual "payload" (which is the e2ee message). Yes, all of that is metadata.

And, of course, it all becomes "Meta data" in the end.

Re: Splitting the Web

#187

Post by account42 »

UnlockedSecrets wrote: post #111
8chanAnon wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've stopped using NoScript because it was breaking my own apps. It was fine until Mozilla changed something in Firefox. The problem is that NoScript inserts a lot of JS into the web page and some of that JS gets broken by some sort security lockout. It may be a bug in Firefox and maybe it's been fixed but I wasn't satisfied with NoScript anyway. I'm now using uMatrix. It doesn't insert JS on every active element (ju…

Umatrix has not been maintained since 2021.

So?

Re: Splitting the Web

#188

Post by forgetfreeman »

titzer wrote: post #88
forgetfreeman wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a them problem. 30 years ago we knew they'd be trouble if they ever adopted the web en masse and they (and the folks that prey on them) have proven that prediction right at every turn.

I couldn't really process your comment because you rounded up to 30. It got me thinking, there was such a huge gulf between 1993 and 1996, at least for me. 1993: derping DOS on a 386; 1996: Windows 95, Quake, dialup, the Web. The pace of change might seem rapid these days, but the 90s were insane fast.

You assume I'm rounding. Multi-line Worldgroup BBS's with shell-to-network services were a thing before AOL opened the floodgates.

Re: Splitting the Web

#189

Post by seabass-labrax »

zzo38computer wrote: post #175
seabass-labrax wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Fossi…

Is this something we could do together? I'm a member of a few groups in the W3C, so I might be able to get something going there. My email address is in my HN profile if you like the the sound of that prospect :)

Re: Splitting the Web

#190

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #172
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's nothing toxic about acknowledging that some things are not for everyone.

I'm specifically interested in the ability to share your ideas with your peers in a way that resists tampering by third parties, provided you're willing to put in a reasonable amount of work re: learning to do so.

If we let that be the mark of a privileged class, then we might as well go back to the middle ages.

Post reply on HN