Comments
Hacker News
Quite ironic to post this on a platform that uses 1/4 of the screen for advertisement and a drowning GDPR prompt. (Also the CSS makes it tedious to read on a computer.)
Why the refusal of Mullvad, though?
It's true that the old web was personal, fun, experimental, and in many ways quite whimsical. There was a sense of discovery, sharing, and being in the verge of a new era.
Like many others, I miss it dearly. But I also don't think keeping it on life support is the solution. The old web is gone, it's sad, but it was a different time and you can't bring back the past.
I say this even though I have an affinity and a modest collection of old hardware and software. I literally see some of this tech every day in my home. Nostalgia is fun, but still, you can't live in the past.
The only way to get something similar to the old web back, is very unpractical. Reduce bandwidth so videos are no longer the main content form; nullify profit from polarizing content; give people an easier interface for typing or participating in forums (touch is still awful for text), etc. In other words: it won't happen. The old online experience is a fun memory, but there's no going back.
Articles like this one, talking about how the original web is still around, miss a key point IMO: that indie web that exists today is socially irrelevant. In the early millennium it was common for people meeting IRL to feel a sense of community because they followed a shared ecosystem of blogs, whether about a band, a religious denomination, a city neighborhood, or a travel subculture.
Today if you read indie web content, it is highly likely that you are the only person you know IRL that reads it. So, when social isolation is a problem many people today complain about, it can be glaring that the indie web doesn't scratch that itch as it once did.
by TFNA
Didn't a lot of people come to the internet proper after first using outfits like AOL and Compuserve ? I wonder if those outfits served as "training grounds" or "boot camps", and what kind of culture shock their customers had upon hitting the "real net" (newsgroups etc.), and whether they learned "enough" netiquette before "graduating to" the wider net.
by euroderf
The medium is the message. People posted websites and interacted other websites like that back then because hypertext static webpages were the medium of the time. We've already progressed through forums, social media, app-ified social media, image and then video and then short form video content, etc. Trying to go back has historically been challenging and mostly the realm of enthusiasts whose usage is warped by the fact that they sought it out. See also: typewriters, horse carriages, etc
by viccis
> And obviously you’ll want a VPN too (skip Mullvad) — Proton’s VPN works fine for that.
Why skip Mullvad ? I thought it has a great reputation.
by nkapias
An alternate framing for these types of "the old web was better" articles is: "I really liked the web better when only privileged, highly educated people could put up content". The reality is that there was a lot of implicit gatekeeping going on in the early web because of the technical hurdles.
by doug_durham
Mostly true but not quite.
You can't do email the "old way" because you'll be buried in spam, and even if you can handle that, others who don't do it the old way may never get your mail.
You can't put a server on the internet the old way because there is nonstop automated door knocking for security violations. In the old days, the attacks were much less sophisticated and mostly a "gentleman's agreement" meant they didn't happen at all.
You can't just open a port and expose a service if you're on CG-NAT or if your provider prohibits or blocks it otherwise.
You can't really do instant messaging the old ways (remember pidgin?) because 99% of the people you'd want to message are on systems with no external API to connect to.
Aside from that yes. I still have an old school static IPv4 address that serves an old school, mostly static HTML web site (and behind authentication some other useful stuff to immediate family members). Uh oh, did I just invite more door knocking?
by MarkusWandel
Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Quite ironic to post this on a platform that uses 1/4 of the screen for advertisement and a drowning GDPR prompt. (Also the CSS makes it tedious to read on a computer.)
Why the refusal of Mullvad, though?
- It's true that the old web was personal, fun, experimental, and in many ways quite whimsical. There was a sense of discovery, sharing, and being in the verge of a new era.
Like many others, I miss it dearly. But I also don't think keeping it on life support is the solution. The old web is gone, it's sad, but it was a different time and you can't bring back the past.
I say this even though I have an affinity and a modest collection of old hardware and software. I literally see some of this tech every day in my home. Nostalgia is fun, but still, you can't live in the past.
The only way to get something similar to the old web back, is very unpractical. Reduce bandwidth so videos are no longer the main content form; nullify profit from polarizing content; give people an easier interface for typing or participating in forums (touch is still awful for text), etc. In other words: it won't happen. The old online experience is a fun memory, but there's no going back.
- Articles like this one, talking about how the original web is still around, miss a key point IMO: that indie web that exists today is socially irrelevant. In the early millennium it was common for people meeting IRL to feel a sense of community because they followed a shared ecosystem of blogs, whether about a band, a religious denomination, a city neighborhood, or a travel subculture.
Today if you read indie web content, it is highly likely that you are the only person you know IRL that reads it. So, when social isolation is a problem many people today complain about, it can be glaring that the indie web doesn't scratch that itch as it once did.
by TFNA - Didn't a lot of people come to the internet proper after first using outfits like AOL and Compuserve ? I wonder if those outfits served as "training grounds" or "boot camps", and what kind of culture shock their customers had upon hitting the "real net" (newsgroups etc.), and whether they learned "enough" netiquette before "graduating to" the wider net.by euroderf
- The medium is the message. People posted websites and interacted other websites like that back then because hypertext static webpages were the medium of the time. We've already progressed through forums, social media, app-ified social media, image and then video and then short form video content, etc. Trying to go back has historically been challenging and mostly the realm of enthusiasts whose usage is warped by the fact that they sought it out. See also: typewriters, horse carriages, etcby viccis
- > And obviously you’ll want a VPN too (skip Mullvad) — Proton’s VPN works fine for that.
Why skip Mullvad ? I thought it has a great reputation.
by nkapias - An alternate framing for these types of "the old web was better" articles is: "I really liked the web better when only privileged, highly educated people could put up content". The reality is that there was a lot of implicit gatekeeping going on in the early web because of the technical hurdles.by doug_durham
- Mostly true but not quite.
You can't do email the "old way" because you'll be buried in spam, and even if you can handle that, others who don't do it the old way may never get your mail.
You can't put a server on the internet the old way because there is nonstop automated door knocking for security violations. In the old days, the attacks were much less sophisticated and mostly a "gentleman's agreement" meant they didn't happen at all.
You can't just open a port and expose a service if you're on CG-NAT or if your provider prohibits or blocks it otherwise.
You can't really do instant messaging the old ways (remember pidgin?) because 99% of the people you'd want to message are on systems with no external API to connect to.
Aside from that yes. I still have an old school static IPv4 address that serves an old school, mostly static HTML web site (and behind authentication some other useful stuff to immediate family members). Uh oh, did I just invite more door knocking?
by MarkusWandel