3 ms·

I think this cannot be done with IP/TCP because of the reliance on each individual to pay for both active web servers and some kind of DNS config. It's possible

I think this cannot be done with IP/TCP because of the reliance on each individual to pay for both active web servers and some kind of DNS config. It's possible to imagine other protocols that could force at least text messaging to flow over other networks. Simple text, over a simpler network protocol, might be possible. The governments could potentially force all cable companies to support it, as a requirement of being licensed. That would allow something like the text exchange that universities enjoyed in the 1980s, when the Internet was confined to universities and subsidized by the Nation Science Foundation. Or, for that matter, the government could directly subsidize something similar. But I think the protocol would have to be simpler. Just plain text, I think. Merely keeping the current system, but wishing consumers would use it differently, is a utopian dream that is unlikely to come true. You need to look at why consumers behave the way in the current system, and then you have to imagine a different system, and that different system cannot look anything like IP/TCP/UDP. We currently have like 8,000 RFCs. We've designed the world's most flexible system. It is very complex. I think you'd need a system simple enough that you could specify the whole thing in a 50 page document. That kind of simplicity. The simplicity should allow it to be cheap, and therefore easy to subsidize, either by the government or out of the profits of cable or phone or network companies.

immibis 4y ago
IPv4 doesn't help. If every PC had an IP address, you could have a blog on your own PC, leaving it on overnight - even a laptop.
- lkrubner 4y ago
  Absolutely. That used to be much more possible back around 1993. The limitations of IPv4 are certainly a contributing factor.
wwweston 4y ago
> I think this cannot be done with IP/TCP because of the reliance on each individual to pay for both active web servers and some kind of DNS config. You can pay someone for that, somewhere around the order of $5 a month, probably less, or free but ad-supported. And that's more or less what Facebook is, except we pay with our data and attention on the back end rather than our dollars up front. The product might be rather different if we did pay in dollars, and for that reason I suspect digital protocols aren't the fundamental problem.
- lkrubner 4y ago
  Every time this conversation comes up, someone on Hacker News says "You can pay someone for that, it only costs about $5 a month." Every time. And then someone points out "$5 a month is a lot, even for some people in the developed world, and very much so in South America, Africa, and much of Asia." $5 a month is far too expensive for most of the world, which is why so much of humanity is now in the walled-gardens like Facebook. So if we want to find a way to destroy the walled-gardens, we're going to have to find an approach that is orders of magnitude cheaper than $5 a month.
  - wwweston 4y ago
    $5 isn't THE number. It's a number that's meant to illustrate a monthly outlay on the order of a meal -- something big enough that it might not fall below the level of consideration for some people (I can certainly remember when it was something I had to think about), but small enough that people with an income level that makes them food-secure can probably swing it. As for other places where 5 USD is a lot of money for reasons of currency and local economic conditions, they'd probably have their own markets and pricing on the order of a meal for a month of service. Any amount will always be a sacrifice compared to free, but given that "free" actually has a cost in terms of privacy, attention, and even baseline function of the tool, there's really no free lunch here, just the currency you want to pay in. Making it actual currency lines up certain incentives better. Even if it doesn't solve the problem among, say, food insecure.
    - lkrubner 4y ago
      "given that free actually has a cost in terms of privacy, attention" Why? You're assuming your conclusion. A different protocol can have different starting assumptions.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    A $3/mo vps can serve tens or even hundreds of blogs. Static hosting is even cheaper. This should really be a function of libraries. Then there's fediverse or even briar or manyverse that work without internet.
switchbak 4y ago
Huh? How does: "because of the reliance on each individual to pay for both active web servers and some kind of DNS config" translate into (roughly): "network protocols are too complex, I want simple text only"? I just don't see how those are related, why we'd have to restrict ourselves to text, why IP is somehow not "enough", etc.
- lkrubner 4y ago
  I think you read my comment backwards. You wrote: why IP is somehow not "enough" How did you get that from my comment? I said we have almost 8,000 RFCs, IP is very robust, but in its complexity there is a certain minimum, unavoidable expense. If we're looking for a protocol that is cheaper, and therefore easier to subsidize, I'd guess that we need a spec so simple that you could write it out in a 50 page document.
  - switchbak 4y ago
    Ok, I get the last part, bad choice of words on "enough". But the idea that we can't have a grassroots socially networked connection of computers on the internet because of the protocols? I just don't see how you've made a case for that. I certainly don't see why it'd have to be text only. The complexity of the internet has grown organically based on responding to limitations (mostly). No doubt there's some unnecessary complexity in there, but what you're talking about is essentially throwing everything away. I just don't see how you've made a compelling case for such an expensive proposition.
    - lkrubner 4y ago
      "for such an expensive proposition" We need something cheaper than what we have now. People gravitate to walled gardens like Facebook because setting up their own systems is too expensive. "No doubt there's some unnecessary complexity in there" At no point did I mention the unnecessary complexity of IP/TCP/UDP, I'm not sure where you got that. I'm only talking about the necessary complexity. It's a great protocol that enables the modern Web. But it is complex enough that there is some expense to setting everything up, and that is why humanity ends up in walled gardens like Facebook. If you want to destroy the walled gardens, then you will need a simpler, cheaper protocol.

immibis 4y ago

IPv4 doesn't help. If every PC had an IP address, you could have a blog on your own PC, leaving it on overnight - even a laptop.

lkrubner 4y ago
Absolutely. That used to be much more possible back around 1993. The limitations of IPv4 are certainly a contributing factor.

wwweston 4y ago

> I think this cannot be done with IP/TCP because of the reliance on each individual to pay for both active web servers and some kind of DNS config. You can pay someone for that, somewhere around the order of $5 a month, probably less, or free but ad-supported. And that's more or less what Facebook is, except we pay with our data and attention on the back end rather than our dollars up front. The product might be rather different if we did pay in dollars, and for that reason I suspect digital protocols aren't the fundamental problem.

lkrubner 4y ago
Every time this conversation comes up, someone on Hacker News says "You can pay someone for that, it only costs about $5 a month." Every time. And then someone points out "$5 a month is a lot, even for some people in the developed world, and very much so in South America, Africa, and much of Asia." $5 a month is far too expensive for most of the world, which is why so much of humanity is now in the walled-gardens like Facebook. So if we want to find a way to destroy the walled-gardens, we're going to have to find an approach that is orders of magnitude cheaper than $5 a month.
- wwweston 4y ago
  $5 isn't THE number. It's a number that's meant to illustrate a monthly outlay on the order of a meal -- something big enough that it might not fall below the level of consideration for some people (I can certainly remember when it was something I had to think about), but small enough that people with an income level that makes them food-secure can probably swing it. As for other places where 5 USD is a lot of money for reasons of currency and local economic conditions, they'd probably have their own markets and pricing on the order of a meal for a month of service. Any amount will always be a sacrifice compared to free, but given that "free" actually has a cost in terms of privacy, attention, and even baseline function of the tool, there's really no free lunch here, just the currency you want to pay in. Making it actual currency lines up certain incentives better. Even if it doesn't solve the problem among, say, food insecure.
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    "given that free actually has a cost in terms of privacy, attention" Why? You're assuming your conclusion. A different protocol can have different starting assumptions.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  A $3/mo vps can serve tens or even hundreds of blogs. Static hosting is even cheaper. This should really be a function of libraries. Then there's fediverse or even briar or manyverse that work without internet.

switchbak 4y ago

Huh? How does: "because of the reliance on each individual to pay for both active web servers and some kind of DNS config" translate into (roughly): "network protocols are too complex, I want simple text only"? I just don't see how those are related, why we'd have to restrict ourselves to text, why IP is somehow not "enough", etc.

lkrubner 4y ago
I think you read my comment backwards. You wrote: why IP is somehow not "enough" How did you get that from my comment? I said we have almost 8,000 RFCs, IP is very robust, but in its complexity there is a certain minimum, unavoidable expense. If we're looking for a protocol that is cheaper, and therefore easier to subsidize, I'd guess that we need a spec so simple that you could write it out in a 50 page document.
- switchbak 4y ago
  Ok, I get the last part, bad choice of words on "enough". But the idea that we can't have a grassroots socially networked connection of computers on the internet because of the protocols? I just don't see how you've made a case for that. I certainly don't see why it'd have to be text only. The complexity of the internet has grown organically based on responding to limitations (mostly). No doubt there's some unnecessary complexity in there, but what you're talking about is essentially throwing everything away. I just don't see how you've made a compelling case for such an expensive proposition.
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    "for such an expensive proposition" We need something cheaper than what we have now. People gravitate to walled gardens like Facebook because setting up their own systems is too expensive. "No doubt there's some unnecessary complexity in there" At no point did I mention the unnecessary complexity of IP/TCP/UDP, I'm not sure where you got that. I'm only talking about the necessary complexity. It's a great protocol that enables the modern Web. But it is complex enough that there is some expense to setting everything up, and that is why humanity ends up in walled gardens like Facebook. If you want to destroy the walled gardens, then you will need a simpler, cheaper protocol.