SmallWeb
idea of a variation/subset of the World Wide Web which has fewer of the ugly bits (Small World)
- less advertising/surveillance capitalism?
- less disinformation?
- more web browsers, less monoculture?
- More Indie apps? More Indie content?
- heh Lu Wilson's list of related concepts
If it's not the Web, then I guess it's the Small Internet not the Small Web
Kartik Agaram gives a Wardley Map for orientation...
Or maybe a subset of WorldWideWeb specs? That would offer the most backward-compatibility....
- what to include/exclude? Feels like each option needs to be mapped in 3-space: ease/difficulty of support (building browsers and servers); value (high/low) to 1st-parties (creators/consumers, not 3rd parties like ad companies); risk of introducing Enshittification.
- candidates to drop
- 3rd-party cookies
- 3rd-party JavaScript embeds
- all JavaScript?
- SSL/TLS - ooh that would generate debate
- while I think the HTTPS-Everywhere push is misguided when pushed on to free content sites, if we want people to be able to make money from their online activities, no matter how Indie, we need SSL
- is there some level of CSS that's hard to support?
Are we trying to focus on "document spreading"? What about "good" social networking (Webs Of Thinkers And Thoughts)?
Do we want the Small-Web Browser to support end-user programming. An easy/safe way of customization through plug-in like today's browser extensions? Uh-oh are we back to JavaScript? Or should we "go back" to Scheme?
- cf Ubiquity extension - if there's no $ at risk, does security become less of a concern?
- maybe the small-browser needs to build on some other open-source cross-platform GUI engine?
Big counter: would this freeze/lock us out of the
- weird/ugly web (MySpace, etc.)
- the object-web from (2012-07-10) Kay Interview?
Maybe we want multiple SmallWebs? But if each requires its own browser, how many people will join?
Edited: | Tweet this! | Search Twitter for discussion