5 ms·
> The reason I think this is needed is because a large percent of Internet users cannot afford hosting personal websites. "For as little as $0.25, you can set
by circuit 3y ago
> The reason I think this is needed is because a large percent of Internet users cannot afford hosting personal websites.
"For as little as $0.25, you can set up websites at NearlyFreeSpeech.NET, the masters of only pay for what you use hosting since 2002." [1]
Are you telling me people who can afford a smartphone cannot afford some simple static hosting?
[1] https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/
- vorticalbox 3y agoYou can run a static site on github.com for free.
- stcroixx 3y agoSurely without any content restrictions or consequences to the account.
- thenickdude 3y agoDo you imagine these restrictions disappear when you host content using your cell provider? They have acceptable use and abuse policies too.
- opportune 3y agoMicropayments aren’t more of a thing already for a reason. There is friction and overhead with signing up for a 3P subscription service even if the actual dollar cost is negligible.
- smallerfish 3y agoThe reason is high credit card fees. If payment gateways allowed micropayments they'd be more popular. (Square, for example, charges 31-33c on anything under $1.)
- MisterSandman 3y agoIf NearlyFreeSpeech.net needs to make $1 of profit to be sustainable, they would just charge $1.50 for their product, and I highly doubt there is anyone who can afford $1 but not $1.50
- nfRfqX5n 3y agolooks like it can't handle a few clicks from hn
- dt3ft 3y agoDown for me as well. I guess you get what you pay for ;)
- _xivi 3y agoExcept, you don't own or control any of these sites or services. You're merely a tenant without any power. You're open for many threats outside your control: 1. Service shutdown 2. Price jacked up 3. Your account/instance terminated 4. Data abused And many more. It's almost guaranteed you'll basically be hold hostage at one point. So, if you're arguing against people having the ability to host on devices they own, you'd need a better argument, one that specifically show how that would be destructive and harmful so that they shouldn't have this freedom.
- troupe 3y agoRunning a webserver on your phone incurs all the same issues plus it might be out of range or your phone might be off. So having a webserver on your phone is actually worse.
- _xivi 3y ago> Running a webserver on your phone incurs all the same issues Huh, what? The issues I mentioned proceed from using services you don't own or have power over. How can I suffer from such issues on my own device? > out of range or your phone might be off and? If the owner is ok with that, where is the problem? Are people not permitted to walk because a car is faster?
- jakelazaroff 3y agoWhat if your service provider cuts you off?