4 ms·

> Oh, and RSS is not dead. Not at all (thanks WordPress, for putting a feed on every instance). RSS is the only workable way to make the web social again. What

by samhw 5y ago

> Oh, and RSS is not dead. Not at all (thanks WordPress, for putting a feed on every instance). RSS is the only workable way to make the web social again. What we need, IMO, is more experimental protocols to enrich the web, which maverick developers can use to good effect, the same way we did originally with RSS. More browsers forking Chromium or Servo to add support for these new features. Hell, maybe even something that doesn't resemble the Web at all. David didn't beat Goliath and nor did Heracles beat the Hydra by using 'the same old weapon but better'. The only thing that wins is a paradigm shift.

rambambram 5y ago
I agree with your sentiment, but RSS and the likes are not 'the same old weapon but better'. It was never 'weaponized' in the first place. It never really came to fruition for the masses. To me, RSS is like two sticks and a string, and it needs some people who can see that they can make a bow and arrow out of it (to stay in the realm of 'weapons'). I don't like talking about tech and business in a sense of 'weapons', 'winning', 'smashing the competition', etc. Talking about it in this sense makes it a struggle, because one will look at tech from the pov of a stockholder, capitalist, or just a narcissist. The wording is very important, and the moment you make that wording your own, you can't see it in a different light anymore. To be honest, it's only since recently that I myself take RSS seriously. Before, I developed a sh1tload of websites without even really knowing what RSS is capable of. Ignorant me. Thanks for your reply!
- pxtail 5y ago
  > I don't like talking about tech and business in a sense of 'weapons', 'winning', 'smashing the competition', etc. Talking about it in this sense makes it a struggle, because one will look at tech from the pov of a stockholder, capitalist, or just a narcissist. The wording is very important, and the moment you make that wording your own, you can't see it in a different light anymore. I like this paragraph a lot, in my perception this is why most of cryptocurrency initiatives and recently hijacked and massacred `web3` concept are fruitless so far - too much focus on how to get rich quickly
  - rambambram 5y ago
    Thanks! Getting rid of notions like 'winning' and 'competition' in areas where it's not necessary was a mind changer for me. Even personal stuff like friendship becomes a competition this way (and I see it everywhere around me). Nowadays, I prefer to think about it as 'challenges' instead of competitions.
- samhw 5y ago
  Interesting point! What would you say the full realisation of RSS would look like? Also, the weapons metaphor was mostly just responding in the frame of the original language about 'pushing back on big tech', 'shattered by big tech', etc. And I do agree with that framing: I think there is a tussle over the direction of the internet – tussle, battle, tug of war, whatever you want to call it – and I'm not sure it helps to avoid the martial metaphor out of distaste when you are in a battle.
  - rambambram 5y ago
    RSS is pub/sub, right? Doesn't social media like Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter - where you post stuff and other people post stuff - resemble that? Replace 'your' account, profile or page with your own website. With the right website software it's easy to have an RSS feed nowadays, so the only thing that's missing is website software that also works like an RSS reader. In the most basic sense you only have to read XML with your program. So now there's your own feed and other people's feed, mixed up in a nice and honest timeline (however you program that). To me this sounds a lot like the first principles behind social media, but without the obscure algorithms to fvck your timeline and without the intruding ads (I have nothing against ads per se). P.S. Sorry for ranting about the weapons metaphor. I triggered on it and felt the need to tell what I think about language. Edit: I forgot to say that RSS feeds have been there all the time for a lot of websites based on Wordpress. That has big value, because it means there's no need for technical adoption. These are all websites with feeds up and running right now. I've been hating on Wordpress for other reasons, but this was a good move for the open web from them.
    - moritz 5y ago
      https://micro.blog https://micro.blog for example does exactly this, sort of RSS based Twitter (i.e the idea is that your feed contains mostly shorter posts, but that’s not a hard restriction) . Give it the RSS of your website (they can also host one for you), "follow" other people (=subscribe to their rss feed) and boom there is your "social media"
      - 5y ago
allknowingfrog 5y ago
If you're not already aware of it, Gemini is an interesting project that aims to do exactly that. https://gemini.circumlunar.space/ https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
- samhw 5y ago
  Interesting, thanks for the pointer! I was aware of Gopher, but not Gemini. It seems to address what would be one of my main concerns about any proposed alternative, which is - for the beginning at least - interoperability with the web. I'm sure people have other bold ideas. I personally think there's a lot of room for something which builds on the 'progressive web app' paradigm: i.e. a web for websites which are more like apps, downloaded once and then exchanging data ad hoc with a backend server, with potentially much richer and more performant experiences. WebAssembly (WASM + WASI) would be a great foundation for something like that. But that's just one among countless compossible paths.
  - allknowingfrog 5y ago
    In a bygone era, everything was built of forms, tables and bullet lists. It would be interesting to experiment with a browser that drops JS support in favor of a more robust list of native components. Alternatively, the modern browser has basically evolved into a virtual machine anyway. You seem to be suggesting that we could do exciting things with a more intentional version of that idea, and I don't disagree.
    - samhw 5y ago
      I've often thought about this. People nowadays build their websites predominantly on React component kits which resemble more sophisticated HTML elements. If HTML were extended to include that more sophisticated functionality -- and come on, it's been 20 years and people are certainly sufficiently aligned on this approach to now include it in the spec -- then I wonder whether JavaScript would be necessary, or at least as necessary as it is now. I think either direction would be interesting. Or both. The browser was an experiment in the first place, but people seem to have stopped experimenting and are just doing the equivalent of what building on an IBM mainframe would have been in those days. It's disappointing. (It's not unlike people who quote Martin Luther King today, not appreciating that the essence of his radicalism was the direction of travel towards justice, not the political compromises themselves which are now firmly established.) I hope at least that the renewed interest in systems programming that's come with the Rust fandom might spur some actually innovative developments to replace the antiquated model we're all stuck using. But sadly the tech community seems to be split into two communities, one of which has no interest in innovating, and the other of which seems to be set on innovations so absurdly impractical (¡world wide web on the blockchain!) that they could never take off.
handrous 5y ago
> is more experimental protocols to enrich the web, New protocols are DOA until we significantly nerf the incentives to "own" the user. IOW it's not gonna happen until we outlaw anything that resembles spying on users. And maybe also ads generally.
- samhw 5y ago
  > And maybe also ads generally. This is all well and good, but then we need a serious alternative funding model for websites. Right now, a lot of people with adblockers are benefiting from a situation fausse where they free-ride on the ad-click revenue generated by others. I think in some people's minds this leads to an impossible expectation that they can continue to enjoy freely provided services, provided at considerable expense to the service provider, without paying anything or even having the inconvenience of having to see some ads. I'm all for abolishing ads, but it needs a serious proposal, not just "what we have right now, but no ads". I'd also be all for an online payment mechanism embedded into browsers through a new protocol - something like https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-request/ https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-request/ but designed with more of a view towards paywalls - but I'm under no illusion: most people's revealed preference is consistently for ads over paying anything, as many startups in that space have discovered.
  - handrous 5y ago
    > This is all well and good, but then we need a serious alternative funding model for websites. Why? Without competition from free-but-funded-with-$billions ad-supported services, most of the valuable stuff would probably be replaced by volunteer and non-profit efforts. Others would survive by charging (more) money. Some would be replaced by protocols (several social networks would be among those replaced). Clients & hosting may be paid, or not. It'd work out fine. Most of the rest isn't valuable.
    - samhw 5y ago
      > Without competition from free-but-funded-with-$billions ad-supported services, most of the valuable stuff would probably be replaced by volunteer and non-profit efforts. It wouldn't just be 'non profit', it would be 'considerable loss'. You can't provide a service like YouTube or Google without incurring enormous expense, even if you're only counting the infrastructure costs. > It'd work out fine. You have no idea whether it would work out fine. Neither do I. I'm intensely sceptical of anyone who issues hand-waving proclamations about how a dramatic change would affect an almost indescribably complex system. You may have your own wishes and preferences, but it's not a good idea to let those invade the rational, evaluative part of your mind. > Most of the rest isn't valuable. Anything that's used by someone is valuable to someone. I don't like paella, but I don't propose to eradicate all paella restaurants for that reason. Again, this feels like a hand-wavey and not very wise answer to dismiss problems with your idea.

by samhw 5y ago

rambambram 5y ago

I agree with your sentiment, but RSS and the likes are not 'the same old weapon but better'. It was never 'weaponized' in the first place. It never really came to fruition for the masses. To me, RSS is like two sticks and a string, and it needs some people who can see that they can make a bow and arrow out of it (to stay in the realm of 'weapons'). I don't like talking about tech and business in a sense of 'weapons', 'winning', 'smashing the competition', etc. Talking about it in this sense makes it a struggle, because one will look at tech from the pov of a stockholder, capitalist, or just a narcissist. The wording is very important, and the moment you make that wording your own, you can't see it in a different light anymore. To be honest, it's only since recently that I myself take RSS seriously. Before, I developed a sh1tload of websites without even really knowing what RSS is capable of. Ignorant me. Thanks for your reply!

pxtail 5y ago
> I don't like talking about tech and business in a sense of 'weapons', 'winning', 'smashing the competition', etc. Talking about it in this sense makes it a struggle, because one will look at tech from the pov of a stockholder, capitalist, or just a narcissist. The wording is very important, and the moment you make that wording your own, you can't see it in a different light anymore. I like this paragraph a lot, in my perception this is why most of cryptocurrency initiatives and recently hijacked and massacred `web3` concept are fruitless so far - too much focus on how to get rich quickly
- rambambram 5y ago
  Thanks! Getting rid of notions like 'winning' and 'competition' in areas where it's not necessary was a mind changer for me. Even personal stuff like friendship becomes a competition this way (and I see it everywhere around me). Nowadays, I prefer to think about it as 'challenges' instead of competitions.
samhw 5y ago
Interesting point! What would you say the full realisation of RSS would look like? Also, the weapons metaphor was mostly just responding in the frame of the original language about 'pushing back on big tech', 'shattered by big tech', etc. And I do agree with that framing: I think there is a tussle over the direction of the internet – tussle, battle, tug of war, whatever you want to call it – and I'm not sure it helps to avoid the martial metaphor out of distaste when you are in a battle.
- rambambram 5y ago
  RSS is pub/sub, right? Doesn't social media like Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter - where you post stuff and other people post stuff - resemble that? Replace 'your' account, profile or page with your own website. With the right website software it's easy to have an RSS feed nowadays, so the only thing that's missing is website software that also works like an RSS reader. In the most basic sense you only have to read XML with your program. So now there's your own feed and other people's feed, mixed up in a nice and honest timeline (however you program that). To me this sounds a lot like the first principles behind social media, but without the obscure algorithms to fvck your timeline and without the intruding ads (I have nothing against ads per se). P.S. Sorry for ranting about the weapons metaphor. I triggered on it and felt the need to tell what I think about language. Edit: I forgot to say that RSS feeds have been there all the time for a lot of websites based on Wordpress. That has big value, because it means there's no need for technical adoption. These are all websites with feeds up and running right now. I've been hating on Wordpress for other reasons, but this was a good move for the open web from them.
  - moritz 5y ago
    https://micro.blog https://micro.blog for example does exactly this, sort of RSS based Twitter (i.e the idea is that your feed contains mostly shorter posts, but that’s not a hard restriction) . Give it the RSS of your website (they can also host one for you), "follow" other people (=subscribe to their rss feed) and boom there is your "social media"
    - 5y ago

allknowingfrog 5y ago

If you're not already aware of it, Gemini is an interesting project that aims to do exactly that. https://gemini.circumlunar.space/ https://gemini.circumlunar.space/

samhw 5y ago
Interesting, thanks for the pointer! I was aware of Gopher, but not Gemini. It seems to address what would be one of my main concerns about any proposed alternative, which is - for the beginning at least - interoperability with the web. I'm sure people have other bold ideas. I personally think there's a lot of room for something which builds on the 'progressive web app' paradigm: i.e. a web for websites which are more like apps, downloaded once and then exchanging data ad hoc with a backend server, with potentially much richer and more performant experiences. WebAssembly (WASM + WASI) would be a great foundation for something like that. But that's just one among countless compossible paths.
- allknowingfrog 5y ago
  In a bygone era, everything was built of forms, tables and bullet lists. It would be interesting to experiment with a browser that drops JS support in favor of a more robust list of native components. Alternatively, the modern browser has basically evolved into a virtual machine anyway. You seem to be suggesting that we could do exciting things with a more intentional version of that idea, and I don't disagree.
  - samhw 5y ago
    I've often thought about this. People nowadays build their websites predominantly on React component kits which resemble more sophisticated HTML elements. If HTML were extended to include that more sophisticated functionality -- and come on, it's been 20 years and people are certainly sufficiently aligned on this approach to now include it in the spec -- then I wonder whether JavaScript would be necessary, or at least as necessary as it is now. I think either direction would be interesting. Or both. The browser was an experiment in the first place, but people seem to have stopped experimenting and are just doing the equivalent of what building on an IBM mainframe would have been in those days. It's disappointing. (It's not unlike people who quote Martin Luther King today, not appreciating that the essence of his radicalism was the direction of travel towards justice, not the political compromises themselves which are now firmly established.) I hope at least that the renewed interest in systems programming that's come with the Rust fandom might spur some actually innovative developments to replace the antiquated model we're all stuck using. But sadly the tech community seems to be split into two communities, one of which has no interest in innovating, and the other of which seems to be set on innovations so absurdly impractical (¡world wide web on the blockchain!) that they could never take off.

handrous 5y ago

> is more experimental protocols to enrich the web, New protocols are DOA until we significantly nerf the incentives to "own" the user. IOW it's not gonna happen until we outlaw anything that resembles spying on users. And maybe also ads generally.

samhw 5y ago
> And maybe also ads generally. This is all well and good, but then we need a serious alternative funding model for websites. Right now, a lot of people with adblockers are benefiting from a situation fausse where they free-ride on the ad-click revenue generated by others. I think in some people's minds this leads to an impossible expectation that they can continue to enjoy freely provided services, provided at considerable expense to the service provider, without paying anything or even having the inconvenience of having to see some ads. I'm all for abolishing ads, but it needs a serious proposal, not just "what we have right now, but no ads". I'd also be all for an online payment mechanism embedded into browsers through a new protocol - something like https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-request/ https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-request/ but designed with more of a view towards paywalls - but I'm under no illusion: most people's revealed preference is consistently for ads over paying anything, as many startups in that space have discovered.
- handrous 5y ago
  > This is all well and good, but then we need a serious alternative funding model for websites. Why? Without competition from free-but-funded-with-$billions ad-supported services, most of the valuable stuff would probably be replaced by volunteer and non-profit efforts. Others would survive by charging (more) money. Some would be replaced by protocols (several social networks would be among those replaced). Clients & hosting may be paid, or not. It'd work out fine. Most of the rest isn't valuable.
  - samhw 5y ago
    > Without competition from free-but-funded-with-$billions ad-supported services, most of the valuable stuff would probably be replaced by volunteer and non-profit efforts. It wouldn't just be 'non profit', it would be 'considerable loss'. You can't provide a service like YouTube or Google without incurring enormous expense, even if you're only counting the infrastructure costs. > It'd work out fine. You have no idea whether it would work out fine. Neither do I. I'm intensely sceptical of anyone who issues hand-waving proclamations about how a dramatic change would affect an almost indescribably complex system. You may have your own wishes and preferences, but it's not a good idea to let those invade the rational, evaluative part of your mind. > Most of the rest isn't valuable. Anything that's used by someone is valuable to someone. I don't like paella, but I don't propose to eradicate all paella restaurants for that reason. Again, this feels like a hand-wavey and not very wise answer to dismiss problems with your idea.