# Splitting the Web by Ploum on 2023-08-01

There's an increasing chasm dividing the modern web. On one side, the
commercial, monopolies-riddled, media-adored web. A web which has
only one objective: making us click. It measures clicks, optimises
clicks, generates clicks. It gathers as much information as it could
about us and spams every second of our life with ads, beep,
notifications, vibrations, blinking LEDs, background music and
fluorescent titles.

A web which boils down to Idiocracy in a Blade Runner landscape, a
complete cyberpunk dystopia.

Then there's the tech-savvy web. People who install adblockers or
alternative browsers. People who try alternative networks such as
Mastodon or, God forbid, Gemini. People who poke fun at the modern
web by building true HTML and JavaScript-less pages.

Between those two extremes, the gap is widening. You have to choose
your camp. When browsing on the "normal web", it is increasingly
required to disable at least part of your antifeatures-blockers to
access content.

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. I'm currently using
kagi.com as my main search engine on the web. And kagi.com comes with
a nice feature, a "non-commercial lens" (which is somewhat ironic
given the fact that Kagi is, itself, a commercial search engine). It
means it will try to deprioritize highly commercial contents. I can
also deprioritize manually some domains. Like facebook.com or
linkedin.com. If you post there, I'm less likely to read you. I've
not even talked about the few times I use marginalia.nu.

Something strange is happening: it's not only a part of the web which
is disappearing for me. As I'm blocking completely google analytics,
every Facebook domain and any analytics I can, I'm also disappearing
for them. I don't see them and they don't see me!

Think about it! That whole "MBA, designers and marketers web" is now
optimised thanks to analytics describing people who don't block
analytics (and bots pretending to be those people). Each day, I feel
more disconnected from that part of the web.

When really needed, dealing with those websites is so nerve breaking
that I often resort to... a phone call or a simple email. I signed my
mobile phone contract by exchanging emails with a real person because
the signup was not working. I phone to book hotels when it is not
straightforward to do it in the web interface or if creating an
account is required. I hate talking on the phone but it saves me a
lot of time and stress. I also walk or cycle to stores instead of
ordering online. Which allows me to get advice and to exchange
defective items without dealing with the post office.

Despite breaking up with what seems to be "The Web", I've never
received so many emails commenting my blog posts. I rarely had as
many interesting online conversations as I have on Mastodon. I've
tens of really insightful contents to read every day in my RSS feeds,
on Gemini, on Hacker News, on Mastodon. And, incredibly, a lot of
them are on very minimalists and usable blogs. The funny thing is
that when non-tech users see my blog or those I'm reading, they
spontaneously tell me how beautiful and usable they are. It's a bit
like all those layers of JavaScript and flashy css have been used
against usability, against them. Against us. It's a bit like real
users never cared about "cool designs" and only wanted something
simple.

It feels like everyone is now choosing its side. You can't stay in
the middle anymore. You are either dedicating all your CPU cycles to
run JavaScript tracking you or walking away from the big monopolies.
You are either being paid to build huge advertising billboards on top
of yet another framework or you are handcrafting HTML.

Maybe the web is not dying. Maybe the web is only splitting itself in
two.

You know that famous "dark web" that journalists crave to write
about? (at my request, one journalist once told me what "dark web"
meant to him and it was "websites not easily accessible through a
Google search".) Well, sometimes I feel like I'm part of that "dark
web". Not to buy drugs or hire hitmen. No! It's only to have a place
where I can have discussions without being spied and interrupted by
ads.

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. Are we splitting from those
click-conversion-funnel-obsessed weirdos? Good riddance! Have fun
with them.

But if you want to jump ship, now is the time to get back to the
simple web. Welcome back aboard!

From: <https://ploum.net/2023-08-01-splitting-the-web.html>

> When really needed, dealing with those websites is so nerve breaking
that I often resort to... a phone call or a simple email.

Yeah, a lot of the web is so unusable I try to have the web browser
open as little as possible.

Good relatable article overall

-- Marco

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes:

> You know that famous "dark web" that journalists crave to write
> about?

No. I do not know what journalists are talking about. I know Tor and
similar things.

> (at my request, one journalist once told me what "dark web" meant to
> him and it was "websites not easily accessible through a Google
> search".)

Sounds like a real expert! /s

--
I do not bite, I just want to play.

On 12/22/23 19:48, yeti wrote:
> Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes:
>
>> You know that famous "dark web" that journalists crave to write
>> about?
>
> No. I do not know what journalists are talking about. I know Tor and
> similar things.
>
>> (at my request, one journalist once told me what "dark web" meant to
>> him and it was "websites not easily accessible through a Google
>> search".)
>
> Sounds like a real expert! /s

Not even "inaccessible". Just "hard to access". geez..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 12/23/23 06:43, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 12/22/23 19:48, yeti wrote:
>> Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes:
>>
>>> You know that famous "dark web" that journalists crave to write
>>> about?
>>
>> No.  I do not know what journalists are talking about.  I know Tor and
>> similar things.
>>
>>> (at my request, one journalist once told me what "dark web" meant to
>>> him and it was "websites not easily accessible through a Google
>>> search".)
>>
>> Sounds like a real expert!  /s
>
> Not even "inaccessible". Just "hard to access". geez..

They are, in a sense, dark, and part of the web. I don't think it's a
bad name for such sites, just an ambiguous one. I wouldn't limit this to
Google though, not to binary values. The content of public Discord
groups is dark*er* than the content of a website you can find with
Google, and a public IRC channel is presently darker than a public
Discord group because fewer people can see it, but both are lighter than
an invite-only Discord or IRC channel.

Silk Road, or whatever they're using now, is lighter than an invite-only
channel, because anyone can install Tor and go to visit it.

I think limiting the term "dark web" to hidden sites is unnecessarily
restrictive and pedantic.

The original meaning of "darknet", before Tor co-opted it, was a network
whose very existence was outside of your immediate neighbours was
invisible. Usenet is almost a darknet, but the Path header provides
visibility of network interconnections. Retroshare is a modern darknet,
or so I heard - I've never tried it - because you only peer with people
you trust, and distant people only send messages to each other through a
trust chain, without a direct connection, just like NNTP. I2P isn't a
darknet, because you can see all the network nodes - I2P's anonymity is
that you can't tell which node is hosting an address.

On 12/22/23 18:47, Ben Collver wrote:
> # Splitting the Web by Ploum on 2023-08-01
>
> There's an increasing chasm dividing the modern web. On one side, the
> commercial, monopolies-riddled, media-adored web. A web which has
> only one objective: making us click. It measures clicks, optimises
> clicks, generates clicks. It gathers as much information as it could
> about us and spams every second of our life with ads, beep,
> notifications, vibrations, blinking LEDs, background music and
> fluorescent titles.
>
> A web which boils down to Idiocracy in a Blade Runner landscape, a
> complete cyberpunk dystopia.
>
> Then there's the tech-savvy web. People who install adblockers or
> alternative browsers. People who try alternative networks such as
> Mastodon or, God forbid, Gemini. People who poke fun at the modern
> web by building true HTML and JavaScript-less pages.
>
> Between those two extremes, the gap is widening. You have to choose
> your camp. When browsing on the "normal web", it is increasingly
> required to disable at least part of your antifeatures-blockers to
> access content.
>
> 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. I'm currently using
> kagi.com as my main search engine on the web. And kagi.com comes with
> a nice feature, a "non-commercial lens" (which is somewhat ironic
> given the fact that Kagi is, itself, a commercial search engine). It
> means it will try to deprioritize highly commercial contents. I can
> also deprioritize manually some domains. Like facebook.com or
> linkedin.com. If you post there, I'm less likely to read you. I've
> not even talked about the few times I use marginalia.nu.
>
> Something strange is happening: it's not only a part of the web which
> is disappearing for me. As I'm blocking completely google analytics,
> every Facebook domain and any analytics I can, I'm also disappearing
> for them. I don't see them and they don't see me!
>
> Think about it! That whole "MBA, designers and marketers web" is now
> optimised thanks to analytics describing people who don't block
> analytics (and bots pretending to be those people). Each day, I feel
> more disconnected from that part of the web.
>
> When really needed, dealing with those websites is so nerve breaking
> that I often resort to... a phone call or a simple email. I signed my
> mobile phone contract by exchanging emails with a real person because
> the signup was not working. I phone to book hotels when it is not
> straightforward to do it in the web interface or if creating an
> account is required. I hate talking on the phone but it saves me a
> lot of time and stress. I also walk or cycle to stores instead of
> ordering online. Which allows me to get advice and to exchange
> defective items without dealing with the post office.
>
> Despite breaking up with what seems to be "The Web", I've never
> received so many emails commenting my blog posts. I rarely had as
> many interesting online conversations as I have on Mastodon. I've
> tens of really insightful contents to read every day in my RSS feeds,
> on Gemini, on Hacker News, on Mastodon. And, incredibly, a lot of
> them are on very minimalists and usable blogs. The funny thing is
> that when non-tech users see my blog or those I'm reading, they
> spontaneously tell me how beautiful and usable they are. It's a bit
> like all those layers of JavaScript and flashy css have been used
> against usability, against them. Against us. It's a bit like real
> users never cared about "cool designs" and only wanted something
> simple.
>
> It feels like everyone is now choosing its side. You can't stay in
> the middle anymore. You are either dedicating all your CPU cycles to
> run JavaScript tracking you or walking away from the big monopolies.
> You are either being paid to build huge advertising billboards on top
> of yet another framework or you are handcrafting HTML.
>
> Maybe the web is not dying. Maybe the web is only splitting itself in
> two.
>
> You know that famous "dark web" that journalists crave to write
> about? (at my request, one journalist once told me what "dark web"
> meant to him and it was "websites not easily accessible through a
> Google search".) Well, sometimes I feel like I'm part of that "dark
> web". Not to buy drugs or hire hitmen. No! It's only to have a place
> where I can have discussions without being spied and interrupted by
> ads.
>
> 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. Are we splitting from those
> click-conversion-funnel-obsessed weirdos? Good riddance! Have fun
> with them.
>
> But if you want to jump ship, now is the time to get back to the
> simple web. Welcome back aboard!
>
> From: <https://ploum.net/2023-08-01-splitting-the-web.html>

Cross-posting to specific communities it would interest. Original thread
in comp.misc. (Is this against Usenet etiquette?)

immibis <news@immibis.com> writes:

> On 12/22/23 18:47, Ben Collver wrote:
>> # Splitting the Web by Ploum on 2023-08-01
>> There's an increasing chasm dividing the modern web. On one side,
>> the
>> commercial, monopolies-riddled, media-adored web. A web which has
>> only one objective: making us click. It measures clicks, optimises
>> clicks, generates clicks. It gathers as much information as it could
>> about us and spams every second of our life with ads, beep,
>> notifications, vibrations, blinking LEDs, background music and
>> fluorescent titles.
>> A web which boils down to Idiocracy in a Blade Runner landscape, a
>> complete cyberpunk dystopia.
>> Then there's the tech-savvy web. People who install adblockers or
>> alternative browsers. People who try alternative networks such as
>> Mastodon or, God forbid, Gemini. People who poke fun at the modern
>> web by building true HTML and JavaScript-less pages.
>> Between those two extremes, the gap is widening. You have to choose
>> your camp. When browsing on the "normal web", it is increasingly
>> required to disable at least part of your antifeatures-blockers to
>> access content.
>> 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. I'm currently using
>> kagi.com as my main search engine on the web. And kagi.com comes with
>> a nice feature, a "non-commercial lens" (which is somewhat ironic
>> given the fact that Kagi is, itself, a commercial search engine). It
>> means it will try to deprioritize highly commercial contents. I can
>> also deprioritize manually some domains. Like facebook.com or
>> linkedin.com. If you post there, I'm less likely to read you. I've
>> not even talked about the few times I use marginalia.nu.
>> Something strange is happening: it's not only a part of the web
>> which
>> is disappearing for me. As I'm blocking completely google analytics,
>> every Facebook domain and any analytics I can, I'm also disappearing
>> for them. I don't see them and they don't see me!
>> Think about it! That whole "MBA, designers and marketers web" is now
>> optimised thanks to analytics describing people who don't block
>> analytics (and bots pretending to be those people). Each day, I feel
>> more disconnected from that part of the web.
>> When really needed, dealing with those websites is so nerve breaking
>> that I often resort to... a phone call or a simple email. I signed my
>> mobile phone contract by exchanging emails with a real person because
>> the signup was not working. I phone to book hotels when it is not
>> straightforward to do it in the web interface or if creating an
>> account is required. I hate talking on the phone but it saves me a
>> lot of time and stress. I also walk or cycle to stores instead of
>> ordering online. Which allows me to get advice and to exchange
>> defective items without dealing with the post office.
>> Despite breaking up with what seems to be "The Web", I've never
>> received so many emails commenting my blog posts. I rarely had as
>> many interesting online conversations as I have on Mastodon. I've
>> tens of really insightful contents to read every day in my RSS feeds,
>> on Gemini, on Hacker News, on Mastodon. And, incredibly, a lot of
>> them are on very minimalists and usable blogs. The funny thing is
>> that when non-tech users see my blog or those I'm reading, they
>> spontaneously tell me how beautiful and usable they are. It's a bit
>> like all those layers of JavaScript and flashy css have been used
>> against usability, against them. Against us. It's a bit like real
>> users never cared about "cool designs" and only wanted something
>> simple.
>> It feels like everyone is now choosing its side. You can't stay in
>> the middle anymore. You are either dedicating all your CPU cycles to
>> run JavaScript tracking you or walking away from the big monopolies.
>> You are either being paid to build huge advertising billboards on top
>> of yet another framework or you are handcrafting HTML.
>> Maybe the web is not dying. Maybe the web is only splitting itself
>> in
>> two.
>> You know that famous "dark web" that journalists crave to write
>> about? (at my request, one journalist once told me what "dark web"
>> meant to him and it was "websites not easily accessible through a
>> Google search".) Well, sometimes I feel like I'm part of that "dark
>> web". Not to buy drugs or hire hitmen. No! It's only to have a place
>> where I can have discussions without being spied and interrupted by
>> ads.
>> 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. Are we splitting from those
>> click-conversion-funnel-obsessed weirdos? Good riddance! Have fun
>> with them.
>> But if you want to jump ship, now is the time to get back to the
>> simple web. Welcome back aboard!
>> From: <https://ploum.net/2023-08-01-splitting-the-web.html>
>
> Cross-posting to specific communities it would interest. Original
> thread in comp.misc. (Is this against Usenet etiquette?)
Interesting. My take on the modern web is like sugar; it's fine in
moderation. This is not a black-and-white issue.

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023, cr0c0d1le wrote:

>> Cross-posting to specific communities it would interest. Original
>> thread in comp.misc. (Is this against Usenet etiquette?)
> Interesting. My take on the modern web is like sugar; it's fine in
> moderation. This is not a black-and-white issue.
>

Agreed. I think it is a false dichotomy. I use the regular web for
banking, booking things, shopping, news, hackernews, blogs, price
comparison etc.

At the same time, I love mailinglists and email where my more high
quality discussion takes place.

Somewhere in the middle is mastodon and usenet.

I do agree though, that there might be a trend towards consolidation
onto Google Chrome and that Google would then run the future of the net.

I also agree that I try to buy more things in person, and that the
booking systems seem to become worse and worse, forcing me to have
multiple web browsers.

In terms of the future, I expect consolidation onto chrome, I expect the
majority to be more tracked and have less choice online, and I do expect
that people will be forced into digital ID:s and will be forced to own
smartphones, which proved to be so convenient for tracking and
controlling people during corona. Those benefits were too good for the
government to let them go.

That leaves me the problem of how to adapt since I do not own a smart
phone and I am paying more for certain things due to my not having one.

Interesting future for sure!

Best regards,
Daniel

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 11:47:36 +0100
immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
> On 12/22/23 18:47, Ben Collver wrote:

[...]

> > From: <https://ploum.net/2023-08-01-splitting-the-web.html>
>
> Cross-posting to specific communities it would interest. Original thread
> in comp.misc. (Is this against Usenet etiquette?)

Crossposting aside , the copyright violation in the opening post (which you
repeated in your quoting) I consider poor form. A short excerpt and the link
would have been preferable.

Regarding the crossposting , I wouldn't say it's necessarily against etiquette
but presents a few problems for responders : first , some newsservers place
restrictions on how many newsgroups you can crosspost so crossposting to 4
means that a responder will have to verify that their chosen server allows
this. Perhaps they know already without looking it up or perhaps they will
have to spend time to look it up.

The other issue is that if one is not familiar with what's on topic on some
of the crossposted groups , it creates a dilemma whether they should simply
remove the crossposting or spend time to visit the groups to become familiar
and see if their response would be on topic.

I'm only lightly familiar with comp.infosystems.gemini ,
comp.infosystems.gopher , comp.infosystems.www.misc , I don't want to spend
the time right now to become more familiar so I only reply on comp.misc
with which I am familiar.

--
vlaho.ninja/menu

On 12/23/23 15:44, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>
> The other issue is that if one is not familiar with what's on topic on some
> of the crossposted groups , it creates a dilemma whether they should simply
> remove the crossposting or spend time to visit the groups to become familiar
> and see if their response would be on topic.
>

Considering that Usenet is not moderated, is filled with extremely
off-topic spam, and there is absolutely no penalty for a post that is
related to what the group is about but still different from the usual
discussion, I don't think that's anything to worry about.

People who use "old web" technologies like Gopher and Gemini are sure to
find it interesting.

In comp.misc cr0c0d1le <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> Interesting. My take on the modern web is like sugar; it's fine in
> moderation. This is not a black-and-white issue.

I find the characteristics of the modern web more like trying to
get through life if I disliked the taste of sugar - everyone keeps
putting it in where I don't want it.

The split that the article describes sounds like what the
proponents of modern web technologies describe as Web 2.0. A
website choosing not to adopt the "Web 2.0" technologies might
indcate a split of opinion, but the pracical split was when
websites I've used for many years in lightweight web browsers
without Javascript or CSS support became unusable except in
Firefox/Chrome based browsers.

Frankly blogs and personal websites aren't the problem there in
the first place for me. Some might look very broken without CSS,
but I don't care anyway. It's everything else, even mainstream news
websites which basically have the same task as large blogs, that
have become less usable in my opinion. Even more so if you don't
want 3rd parties like Google keeping tabs on you while you browse
(potentially via their unavoidable, and ever more numerous, captcha
scripts, if not via Google Analytics).

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
> Considering that Usenet is not moderated, is filled with extremely
> off-topic spam, and there is absolutely no penalty for a post that is
> related to what the group is about but still different from the usual
> discussion, I don't think that's anything to worry about.
>
> People who use "old web" technologies like Gopher and Gemini are sure to
> find it interesting.

I see all the fuel for Usenet's first Web/Gopher/Gemini flame
war. Except for participants, that is.

Still, I'll keep the popcorn on standby...

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

D:

> That leaves me the problem of how to adapt since I do not
> own a smart phone and I am paying more for certain things
> due to my not having one.

Same thing with me in Russia: discrimination against people
without smartphones, or not wishing to clutter their
smartphones with the "apps" of every shop the visit.
Futhermore, I can no longer use many internet shops and do
other things on the web wihout a phone becase of a mandatory
2FA or the abandonment of e-mail in favour of proprietary
messengers and SMS for notifications and communication in
general. Some shops have you registed in a social network
(VK) in order to become their client!

In fact, I hate the so-called loyaty programs, because they
are about anything /but/ loyaty, and make some clients pay
unreasonable high prices in order than other ones may pay
lower prices, whereas the actual cost or servising a client
does not depend on whether he participates in the so-called
loyalty program.

And what nasty a word choice! Loyalty is unselfish
faithfulness and commitment at the sacrifice of one's own
interests and well-being. Getting a discount is the
opposite.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> D:
>
> > That leaves me the problem of how to adapt since I do not
> > own a smart phone and I am paying more for certain things
> > due to my not having one.
>
> Same thing with me in Russia: discrimination against people
> without smartphones, or not wishing to clutter their
> smartphones with the "apps" of every shop the visit.

The German movement "Digitalcourage" has coined the term "Digitalzwang"
(compulsory digitalisation) for this feature. For instance, some public
funding programmes cannot be used unless you have access to a PC (a
smartphone is not sufficient) hooked up to the internet.

Digitalcourage support responsible digitalisation by offering help in the
usage of secure authorisation and encryption but strictly disapproves of
any form of compulsory digitalisation. People who refuse using public data
networks, whatever their motives, must have equal rights as everybody
else.
--
Helmut Richter

In comp.infosystems.gopher immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
> On 12/22/23 18:47, Ben Collver wrote:
>> # Splitting the Web by Ploum on 2023-08-01
>>
>> 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. Are we splitting from those
>> click-conversion-funnel-obsessed weirdos? Good riddance! Have fun
>> with them.
>>
>> But if you want to jump ship, now is the time to get back to the
>> simple web. Welcome back aboard!
>>
>> From: <https://ploum.net/2023-08-01-splitting-the-web.html>
>
> Cross-posting to specific communities it would interest. Original thread
> in comp.misc. (Is this against Usenet etiquette?)

Personally I don't see that it is possible to split the web, the whole
idea behind it is that you can seemlessly navigate between sites, so even
with the best efforts and intentions, you don't really know what kind of
site that next link click will take you to.

The problem is that the technology of the modern web facilitates all of
the problems listed above. Older technologies, like gopher and usenet,
due to their limited nature are unable to be harmful to their users in
the same way.

Add blockers are in a constant arms race with the add marketers, like
youtube is punishing people who are trying to block their adverts
currently. Why fight it?

My own philosophy is to abandon the web, wherever practical to do so.
Where I do have to interact with it (banking, shopping, bookings) I try
to get it done and then close the browser. If I should visit a link that
someone posts then I'll use lynx, if the site requires javascript then I
just close it in defiance.

I make heavy use of RSS for web based information, news and sites that
I'm interested in. Thankfully even if they don't advertise the fact
they often have RSS feeds, the links are hidden in the page if you
search the source. I don't have any social media accounts, unless you
count a linkedin profile page. I never post anything on the web and
don't have a personal website. I have also, in the past year, returned
to Usenet and have been trying to encourage others to do so too. Google
is finally releasing its grip, which hopefully means that the influx of
spam from the web will soon end:
https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/18/google_ends_usenet_links/

For me, I've chosen to invest my energy into irc, gopher and usenet,
where communities can exist and content is created because people want
to share some idea or interest. The technology doesn't lend itself to
abusing its users for financial gain and that is a wonderful thing.

The web is nolonger a community space, it is a coroporate mining
operation and it is people that are being mined.

Merry Christmas!

--

IanJ

gopher://gopher.icu

On 2023-12-24, IanJ <SPAMian_jones_01@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> My own philosophy is to abandon the web, wherever practical to
> do so. Where I do have to interact with it (banking, shopping,
> bookings) I try to get it done and then close the browser. If
> I should visit a link that someone posts then I'll use lynx, if
> the site requires javascript then I just close it in defiance.

Same here, practically identically.

> I have also, in the past year, returned to Usenet and have
> been trying to encourage others to do so too.

I mention it here and there in Gemini spaces, which means in
my experience means there's likely nobody reading it. :-)

*But*, I'm going to keep peeking back at a few newsgroups and
see if any take off.

Thanks for the reply!

--
Oldernow
gemlog | gemini://tilde.club/~oldernow | gemini://bbs.geminispace.org/u/oldernow
email | xyz001@nym.hush.com

IanJ <SPAMian_jones_01@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> In comp.infosystems.gopher immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>> On 12/22/23 18:47, Ben Collver wrote:
>>> # Splitting the Web by Ploum on 2023-08-01
>>>
>>> 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. Are we splitting from those
>>> click-conversion-funnel-obsessed weirdos? Good riddance! Have fun
>>> with them.
>>>
>>> But if you want to jump ship, now is the time to get back to the
>>> simple web. Welcome back aboard!
>>>
>>> From: <https://ploum.net/2023-08-01-splitting-the-web.html>
>>
>> Cross-posting to specific communities it would interest. Original thread
>> in comp.misc. (Is this against Usenet etiquette?)
>
>
> Personally I don't see that it is possible to split the web, the whole
> idea behind it is that you can seemlessly navigate between sites, so even
> with the best efforts and intentions, you don't really know what kind of
> site that next link click will take you to.
>
> The problem is that the technology of the modern web facilitates all of
> the problems listed above. Older technologies, like gopher and usenet,
> due to their limited nature are unable to be harmful to their users in
> the same way.
>
> Add blockers are in a constant arms race with the add marketers, like
> youtube is punishing people who are trying to block their adverts
> currently. Why fight it?
>
> My own philosophy is to abandon the web, wherever practical to do so.
> Where I do have to interact with it (banking, shopping, bookings) I try
> to get it done and then close the browser. If I should visit a link that
> someone posts then I'll use lynx, if the site requires javascript then I
> just close it in defiance.
>
> I make heavy use of RSS for web based information, news and sites that
> I'm interested in. Thankfully even if they don't advertise the fact
> they often have RSS feeds, the links are hidden in the page if you
> search the source. I don't have any social media accounts, unless you
> count a linkedin profile page. I never post anything on the web and
> don't have a personal website. I have also, in the past year, returned
> to Usenet and have been trying to encourage others to do so too. Google
> is finally releasing its grip, which hopefully means that the influx of
> spam from the web will soon end:
> https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/18/google_ends_usenet_links/
I dropped LinkedIn a few years ago. As a web dev, not being on LinkedIn
is a risky move, but data brokers can take a hike. I stand by my decision.
>
>
> For me, I've chosen to invest my energy into irc, gopher and usenet,
> where communities can exist and content is created because people want
> to share some idea or interest. The technology doesn't lend itself to
> abusing its users for financial gain and that is a wonderful thing.
Don't forget BBSes! Some of them are pretty active.
>
> The web is nolonger a community space, it is a coroporate mining
> operation and it is people that are being mined.
>
> Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas as well!

On 12/24/23 14:19, IanJ wrote:
> Personally I don't see that it is possible to split the web, the whole
> idea behind it is that you can seemlessly navigate between sites, so even
> with the best efforts and intentions, you don't really know what kind of
> site that next link click will take you to.

Most commercial websites - by which I mean websites whose commerce *is*
the website, not just websites for companies - already block themselves
off from the free web, trying to make you pay to get in.

And people who use the free web probably don't get much value from them,
either.

It won't be a complete split, but a network with two clusters.

The rest of your message describes you as a primarily free web user, who
split himself from the commercial web.

immibis <news@immibis.com> writes:

> On 12/24/23 14:19, IanJ wrote:
>
>> Personally I don't see that it is possible to split the web, the whole
>> idea behind it is that you can seemlessly navigate between sites, so even
>> with the best efforts and intentions, you don't really know what kind of
>> site that next link click will take you to.
>
> Most commercial websites - by which I mean websites whose commerce *is*
> the website, not just websites for companies - already block themselves
> off from the free web, trying to make you pay to get in.

My personal gripe is that while web sites providing useful information
tend to have readable, well-connected text, those that actually want
to sell you something -- anything from books to industrial compressors
-- are burdened with arcane javascript and connective and/or
interavtive complexity that often defeats my browser.

In particular, I'm totally pissed off with Coles/Indigo/Chapters.
After their major system crash of a some months ago, they will no
longer let you come to a store in person and order a book. A store
clerk will, if prodded, look a book up on their computer a sell you a
cash-card/receipt the ID number of which you an the use to pay for
your book that you must then order on line. They assure you that you
can opt to have the book delivered to your local store for pick-up if
you like.

To add insult to this stupidity, their on-line system is clever
enough to deduce you location from your IP address and offer stores in
your area as delivery destinations. Only their cleverness is borken;
it deduces that because the corporate address of my ISP is in
Montreal, they will only offer to deliver to their stores in the
Montreal area. I happen to be ca. 1,000 miles east of Montreal but
their web site seems to not offer any way for me to tell them that.

Looks to me as if they've signed a death warrant for their bricks &
mortar stores, working from the notion that spending $BIGNUM on
re-implementing their crashed in-store network and ordering system is
way too much to service people such as I who read a lot, actually buy
hard-cover books and prefer the process of buying from humans in a
real, non-virtual place.

> And people who use the free web probably don't get much value from them,
> either.
>
> It won't be a complete split, but a network with two clusters.

[ groups trimmed to comp.misc, comp.infosystems.www.misc ]

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes:

> immibis <news@immibis.com> writes:
>
>> On 12/24/23 14:19, IanJ wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I don't see that it is possible to split the web, the whole
>>> idea behind it is that you can seemlessly navigate between sites, so even
>>> with the best efforts and intentions, you don't really know what kind of
>>> site that next link click will take you to.
>>
>> Most commercial websites - by which I mean websites whose commerce *is*
>> the website, not just websites for companies - already block themselves
>> off from the free web, trying to make you pay to get in.
>
> My personal gripe is that while web sites providing useful information
> tend to have readable, well-connected text, those that actually want
> to sell you something -- anything from books to industrial compressors
> -- are burdened with arcane javascript and connective and/or
> interavtive complexity that often defeats my browser.
>
> In particular, I'm totally pissed off with Coles/Indigo/Chapters.
> After their major system crash of a some months ago, they will no
> longer let you come to a store in person and order a book. A store
> clerk will, if prodded, look a book up on their computer a sell you a
> cash-card/receipt the ID number of which you an the use to pay for
> your book that you must then order on line. They assure you that you
> can opt to have the book delivered to your local store for pick-up if
> you like.
>
> To add insult to this stupidity, their on-line system is clever
> enough to deduce you location from your IP address and offer stores in
> your area as delivery destinations. Only their cleverness is borken;
> it deduces that because the corporate address of my ISP is in
> Montreal, they will only offer to deliver to their stores in the
> Montreal area. I happen to be ca. 1,000 miles east of Montreal but
> their web site seems to not offer any way for me to tell them that.
>
> Looks to me as if they've signed a death warrant for their bricks &
> mortar stores, working from the notion that spending $BIGNUM on
> re-implementing their crashed in-store network and ordering system is
> way too much to service people such as I who read a lot, actually buy
> hard-cover books and prefer the process of buying from humans in a
> real, non-virtual place.
>
>> And people who use the free web probably don't get much value from them,
>> either.
>>
>> It won't be a complete split, but a network with two clusters.
>
>
> [ groups trimmed to comp.misc, comp.infosystems.www.misc ]
I gave up on Indigo/Chapters a long time ago. I've had too many issues
with them.

cr0c0d1le <cr0c0d1le@cogeco.ca> writes:

> I gave up on Indigo/Chapters a long time ago. I've had too many issues
> with them.

Only bookstore in town after the non-corporate local store packed it
in after 40 years. Started by friends, sold to other friends, finally
gave up competing with Chapters, Amazon and on-line vendors.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023, Anton Shepelev wrote:

>> That leaves me the problem of how to adapt since I do not
>> own a smart phone and I am paying more for certain things
>> due to my not having one.
>
> Same thing with me in Russia: discrimination against people
> without smartphones, or not wishing to clutter their
> smartphones with the "apps" of every shop the visit.
> Futhermore, I can no longer use many internet shops and do
> other things on the web wihout a phone becase of a mandatory
> 2FA or the abandonment of e-mail in favour of proprietary
> messengers and SMS for notifications and communication in
> general. Some shops have you registed in a social network
> (VK) in order to become their client!
>

Hello Anton,

Wow! It sounds like russia is even worse than my country in this case.
=( What I do is to have an american express credit card, since that
seems to be the only credit card available to me that sends 2fa through
either email or sms. All my native credit cards require apps + the
government digital ID which in turn requires a modern smart phone (don't
even think about running it on a 6 year old smart phone, won't work).

So my other solution is debit-cards which still work although many of
them are starting to move to the app + government ID.

My last and final solution is to have my wife buy things for me. ;)

> In fact, I hate the so-called loyaty programs, because they
> are about anything /but/ loyaty, and make some clients pay
> unreasonable high prices in order than other ones may pay
> lower prices, whereas the actual cost or servising a client
> does not depend on whether he participates in the so-called
> loyalty program.

Never bothered with them, and I do pay the higher price due to it. I
always wondered if there was room for starting a business that would
aggregate all programs on behalf of other people and thus "garble" the
information. Think of it as an e-commerce proxy where people pay you
cash or through bank transfer and you (and your staff) buy things online
on their behalf. The profile then built up is based on 10, 20...x
persons so won't really be useful. I assume that it is illegal but would
be a nice privacy preserving service. =)

> And what nasty a word choice! Loyalty is unselfish
> faithfulness and commitment at the sacrifice of one's own
> interests and well-being. Getting a discount is the
> opposite.

Agreed!

Best regards,
Daniel

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023, Helmut Richter wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>
>> D:
>>
>>> That leaves me the problem of how to adapt since I do not
>>> own a smart phone and I am paying more for certain things
>>> due to my not having one.
>>
>> Same thing with me in Russia: discrimination against people
>> without smartphones, or not wishing to clutter their
>> smartphones with the "apps" of every shop the visit.
>
> The German movement "Digitalcourage" has coined the term "Digitalzwang"
> (compulsory digitalisation) for this feature. For instance, some public
> funding programmes cannot be used unless you have access to a PC (a
> smartphone is not sufficient) hooked up to the internet.
>
> Digitalcourage support responsible digitalisation by offering help in the
> usage of secure authorisation and encryption but strictly disapproves of
> any form of compulsory digitalisation. People who refuse using public data
> networks, whatever their motives, must have equal rights as everybody
> else.
>

Interesting! Do you have any links to german organizations working on
this? I would be interested in reaching out and learning what they are
doing and how they are working to see if I might not be able to do
something similar in my home country.

Best regards,
Daniel

D <nospam@example.net> writes:
> My last and final solution is to have my wife buy things for me. ;)
>
I use the Stallman solution: No cash, no sale!

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023, IanJ wrote:

> For me, I've chosen to invest my energy into irc, gopher and usenet,
> where communities can exist and content is created because people want

A question... how do you find good quality newsgroups? I downloaded a
list of all newsgroups, sorted them based on nr of messages and stumbled
onto a _few_ that seemed to have good conversations, but many were
garbage.

Is there some smart way to find more groups with good, quality
conversations?

Best regards,
Daniel