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

A simple web we own

rsdoiel.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 240 posts

Re: A simple web we own

#201

Post by pwndByDeath »

EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #149
txrx0000 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is hope. It's not only possible, but it is likely and is already underway. DNS can be replaced. IPv4/v6 can be replaced. We just need to build a layer on top that ignores the access controls of the underlying layer (the Internet), then replace the underlying layer altogether with new infrastructure. There will be more efforts like this: https://yggdrasil-network.github.io Those who want control over other peopl…

First step to have a protocol that depends on mass adoption to be useful: choose an unpronounceable name

It's the most fun word to pronounce!

Re: A simple web we own

#202

Post by wkrsz »

ang_cire wrote: post #193
wkrsz wrote: post #184

My concern is that when we succeed making "our own web" popular, the Big Cos will lobby for legislation that would put burden on all operators, such that it would be unreasonably costly for small operators but easy for themselves to meet. Probably under disguise of "think of the children". Besides technology we'd need a strong organization advocating for "our own web".

That is already happening, but this is where peer-to-peer becomes helpful, because in order for 'Big Cos' and 'Big Gub' to audit your web they have to have visibility into it in the first place.

I'm thinking more of situation where definitions of mass-media are extended to cover individual bloggers.

> Professional influencers with over 500,000 followers fall under the Dutch Media Act (Mediawet, 2008) and are supervised by the media authority CvDM, which applies rules similar to those for on-demand audiovisual media services, including requirements on recognizable advertising and protection of minors.

https://cmpf.eui.eu/influencers-as-news-creators-implication...

> Current Rule: Now, influencers with 100,000+ followers (across YouTube, Instagram, or TikTok) who post at least 24 videos a year and earn money must register with the CvdM and pay annual supervision fees. > The Burden: You are expected to know your reach. If you cross the 100,000 mark and fail to register, you are technically in violation.

Another example:

https://medium.com/michigan-news/proposed-florida-blogging-l...

Re: A simple web we own

#203

Post by tetris11 »

raincole wrote: post #192
tetris11 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a whole meme subgenre dedicated to this type of argument. Search for "Yet you participate in society, curious!"

Except it's completely different. You cannot "not participate in society" in a meaningful way. But you can self-host a blog. Especially for someone tech-savvy enough to talk about web technology.

But then you need to fight bots day and night and do some serious sandboxing on your server which you might be using for other things and is likely to have other accessible endpoints for people to exploit.

You also might not want your IP to be indexed by crawlers. Offloading the burden of hosting onto an already public site mitigates a lot of those issues.

If it wasn't Github it would be Gitlab, if not Gitlab, somewhere else I'm sure.

The point being you shouldn't need to soapbox from your doorstep, but use the commons as intended

Re: A simple web we own

#204

Post by talkingtab »

The top comment (right now) is saying this cannot be done. That is wrong. It is exactly the same as those people who said "We cannot build an internet because of [insert infinity of issues]". The one we are using for this discussion.

We live in a time where people somehow think they cannot make bread without a $400 (USD) bread making machine. We suffer from learned helplessness, paint-by-number syndrome, follow-the-leader syndrome, and cargo-cult thinking. We use recipes instead of developing skills.

Implementing "a web we own" is a hard and difficult problem. The poster is correct that ISP's are a problem. But if this learned helplessness is the top comment on "HACKER" News then there is something seriously wrong with how HN works.

This is NOT about the commenters. This is about a system of interaction - comments on HN - that seems to promote anything but hacking.

My apologies for the "rant" nature of this post, but there is a point here that I believe is worth stating. Or you know, just unfollow me, vote me down, and I probably misspelld some words along the way.

Re: A simple web we own

#206

Post by Muhammad523 »

talkingtab wrote: post #204

The top comment (right now) is saying this cannot be done. That is wrong. It is exactly the same as those people who said "We cannot build an internet because of [insert infinity of issues]". The one we are using for this discussion. We live in a time where people somehow think they cannot make bread without a $400 (USD) bread making machine. We suffer from learned helplessness, paint-by-number syndrome, follow-the-l…

I agree. (Almost) Every problem that looks impossible to solve actually is not. People should not focus on "Why we cant do this because of current problems." but rather on "How could we possibly do this, considering the current problems?"

Re: A simple web we own

#207

Post by munificent »

tclancy wrote: post #135
munificent wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think that's true. I was active in the early blogging days and writing blogs as a response to other blogs was a really common pattern and part of the way the community functioned. It was sort of one big distributed conversation. Certainly, it's fundamental to human nature that if we work hard to create something, we want some way to tell that another human was moved by it.

Yeah, fair. OTOH, Tibetan sand mandalas and all that. While we do seem to be wired to crave attention, does that inherently mean it's a good drive?

Every drive has an adaptive and maladaptive side, so none is inherently good or evil.

But, certainly, I think creating things, sharing them with people, and establishing a connection in return can be one of the most meaningful, joyful parts of the human experience.

Re: A simple web we own

#208

Post by krupan »

tetris11 wrote: post #203
raincole wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's completely different. You cannot "not participate in society" in a meaningful way. But you can self-host a blog. Especially for someone tech-savvy enough to talk about web technology.

But then you need to fight bots day and night and do some serious sandboxing on your server which you might be using for other things and is likely to have other accessible endpoints for people to exploit. You also might not want your IP to be indexed by crawlers. Offloading the burden of hosting onto an already public site mitigates a lot of those issues. If it wasn't Github it would be Gitlab, if not Gitlab, somewh…

"But then you need to fight bots day and night and do some serious sandboxing on your server which you might be using for other things and is likely to have other accessible endpoints for people to exploit."

For a static read-only website? No, that's not necessary.

Re: A simple web we own

#209

Post by RattlesnakeJake »

squeefers wrote: post #188
graypegg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point the author is trying to make is more so about these mini networks on their own LAN, which their family uses. (And maybe dreaming of a neighbourhood utility LAN as a middle ground between LAN in your house and WAN as just a trunk to a big ISP node) The full quote is - A Raspberry Pi 3B+ with a 3 gigabyte hard drive setup as a "server" (makes this site available on my home network[9]) - I publish this…

hes like these off-gridders that use iphones.... larping some kind of self-sufficieny, whilst being firmly tied to industrialised society and completely unwilling to sever the link

At least they can comfort themselves with the fact that their iPhones support Lockdown Mode XD

Re: A simple web we own

#210

Post by squeefers »

Maakuth wrote: post #196
squeefers wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

who pays for it then?

The ISPs are a natural monopoly, or oligopoly at least, because it's expensive to lay cable for each home. Their business is quite profitable even when they don't get to control their customers traffic.

what question are you answering here?
Post reply on HN