12 ms·

Interesting. I'd love to give feedback, but I don't think anything I want fits into the modern web. What I want are often problems with the modern nature of thi

Interesting. I'd love to give feedback, but I don't think anything I want fits into the modern web. What I want are often problems with the modern nature of things, not so much with features lacking in the web as it stands. Eg; 1. I dislike how mutable information is. While I really value ephemerality, I think the "web" needs the ability to refer to content in an immutable way. Misinformation is big these days, and mutation only adds to confusion. It's why some information store stuff I'm writing is all content addressed; in my view information needs to be immutable. 2. Obviously tracking is a problem these days. I don't think this is a problem of the "web", but I do think it's a problem of the "web" that we have no easy way to distinguish between information sources, like an html page, vs applications with a user experience. I love big bloated web apps, but I think the user needs to be able to distinguish what type of application they're seeking. Information should not opt into complex application user experiences, aka JavaScript. The web keeps opting into more feature bloat as the default; this seems wrong. The opt-in, not feature bloat, to be clear. 3. The web as it stands also seems to embrace centralization over decentralization. This again is fine (imo) for user experience stuff; not everything needs to be decentralized. Yet, for information, especially immutable information, decentralization seems not only useful but vital. Ideally, stupid simple decentralization too. Connected hubs of peers are nice, but I don't think we should be required to run a process/server to view and manage something immutable. `git pull` a slice of the immutable information you want seems (to me) to be a critical lowest denominator here. Sharing, slicing up, distributing on flash drives, etc - the web as I'd like it should promote sharing of information in ways that fit as many people as possible; not just the ones permanently connected to the internet and so forth. I could go on, but I think ultimately what I end up describing is an alternate web. Something based around immutability and information, with opt-in full user experiences (aka javascript, wasm, etc) on top of that. What does this look like? Is this IPFS or DAT? No idea. All I know is I'm making an information store, likely very imperfect and full of flaws, with these ideals in mind. I love the model of Scuttlebutt and a compatibility of that and connected-distributed ideas like IPFS/DAT seem best to me currently. I hope we continue to embrace immutability.

pfraze 7y ago
The immutability argument makes a lot more sense once you detach presentation from content (json, markdown, style-free html). A presentation-free Web is basically a DB with immutability acting as its versioning system. IPFS/Dat make that argument stronger my adding writability to end-users. A presentation-free Web also empowers the browser to set the presentation, which really helps with issues around accessibility, anti-tracking, end-user customization, and (I'd argue) decentralization of Web software overall.
- marknadal 7y ago
  Immutablity doesn't scale. Users like having experiences. It's much easier to build something like Google/Uber/AirBnB on GUN/CRDTs than only-hash based or append-only protocols. End users don't use something for the protocol, they use it because the app developer created something that gives them value. We need to stop pitching decentralization to the fantasies of developers, and start giving value to makers, shippers, and users.
  - lijogdfljk 7y ago
    > Immutablity doesn't scale. I imagine you're thinking of specific implementation(s) of immutability. Regardless, my use case is not that of Google; my use case is of the person. It's of being able to share, own and read information with trust. > Users like having experiences. This feels like a straw man. I very much supported UXs in my post; I even said I love bloated feature rich user experiences. I don't think anyone intends to entirely give up feature rich web. We often just want options. Right now we only have the mutable, feature bloated web. While I love it for applications, it seems terrible for information. > It's much easier to build something like Google/Uber/AirBnB on GUN/CRDTs than only-hash based or append-only protocols. Quite possibly; I do not claim to have all the answers. What I have is a desire. A desire to be able to refer to content, and not have someone change the meaning of that content. In the age of misinformation I don't think we have a choice. In the same way that a signed binary can be important, I think signed / immutable information is important. Do you disagree? > End users don't use something for the protocol, they use it because the app developer created something that gives them value. Agreed; which is why I was talking about value I see in the features of immutability I described. As well as the anti-value (is that a thing?) I see in the state of the mutable web as it stands now. > We need to stop pitching decentralization to the fantasies of developers, and start giving value to makers, shippers, and users. Saying decentralization is a fantasy seems in spite of some of the most successful technologies in human history. This is odd to me. edit: as well as new federated software embracing decentralization. You being against this is perplexing to me.

pfraze 7y ago

The immutability argument makes a lot more sense once you detach presentation from content (json, markdown, style-free html). A presentation-free Web is basically a DB with immutability acting as its versioning system. IPFS/Dat make that argument stronger my adding writability to end-users. A presentation-free Web also empowers the browser to set the presentation, which really helps with issues around accessibility, anti-tracking, end-user customization, and (I'd argue) decentralization of Web software overall.

marknadal 7y ago
Immutablity doesn't scale. Users like having experiences. It's much easier to build something like Google/Uber/AirBnB on GUN/CRDTs than only-hash based or append-only protocols. End users don't use something for the protocol, they use it because the app developer created something that gives them value. We need to stop pitching decentralization to the fantasies of developers, and start giving value to makers, shippers, and users.
- lijogdfljk 7y ago
  > Immutablity doesn't scale. I imagine you're thinking of specific implementation(s) of immutability. Regardless, my use case is not that of Google; my use case is of the person. It's of being able to share, own and read information with trust. > Users like having experiences. This feels like a straw man. I very much supported UXs in my post; I even said I love bloated feature rich user experiences. I don't think anyone intends to entirely give up feature rich web. We often just want options. Right now we only have the mutable, feature bloated web. While I love it for applications, it seems terrible for information. > It's much easier to build something like Google/Uber/AirBnB on GUN/CRDTs than only-hash based or append-only protocols. Quite possibly; I do not claim to have all the answers. What I have is a desire. A desire to be able to refer to content, and not have someone change the meaning of that content. In the age of misinformation I don't think we have a choice. In the same way that a signed binary can be important, I think signed / immutable information is important. Do you disagree? > End users don't use something for the protocol, they use it because the app developer created something that gives them value. Agreed; which is why I was talking about value I see in the features of immutability I described. As well as the anti-value (is that a thing?) I see in the state of the mutable web as it stands now. > We need to stop pitching decentralization to the fantasies of developers, and start giving value to makers, shippers, and users. Saying decentralization is a fantasy seems in spite of some of the most successful technologies in human history. This is odd to me. edit: as well as new federated software embracing decentralization. You being against this is perplexing to me.