The democratization ends at your router. Unless you are willing to lay down your own wires - which for legal reasons you most likely won't be able to do, we will hopelessly be dependent on the ISP. (Radio on free frequencies is possible and there are valiant attempts, they will ultimately remain niche and have severe bandwidth limitations)

For decades ISP have throttled upload speeds: they don't want you to run services over their lines. When DSL was around (I guess it still is) in Germany, there was a mandatory 24h disconnect. ISP control what you can see and how fast you can see it. They should be subject to heavy regulation to ensure a free internet.

The large networks, trans-atlantic, trans-pacific cables, all that stuff is beyond the control of individuals and even countries. If they don't like your HTTP(S) traffic, the rest of the world won't see it.

So what you can own is your local network. Using hardware that is free of back-doors and remote control. There's no guarantee for that. If you are being targeted even the Rasperry Pi you just ordered might be compromised. We should demand from our legislators that hardware like this is free of back-doors.

As to content creation: There are so so many tools available that allow non-technical users to write and publish. There's no crisis here other than picking the best tool for the job.

In short: there's no hope of getting a world-wide, free, uncensored, unlimited IP4/6 network back. We never had it in the first place.

I publish this site via GitHub Pages service for public Internet access

A whole post about not needing big corporations to publish things online, and then they use Microsoft to publish this thing online...

Then the URL was http://www.<hostname.domain>/~<username>

I haven't see an URL with a tilde ('~') in it in a long time.

Why did ISPs stop with this service? Was it to curb illegal file sharing?

Another thought I had is that local AI could most definitely play a part in helping non-technical users create the kind of content they want. If your CMS gives you a GPT-like chat window that allows a non-technical user to restyle the page as they like, or do things like make mass edits - then I think that is something that could help some of the issues mentioned here.

But I do think we’re reaching a turning point on the software side. The barrier to building custom, personalized apps is trending toward 0. I’m not naive enough to think every grandma will suddenly start asking ChatGPT to “build me an app to do XYZ,” but with the right UX it can be implicit. Imagine you tell an assistant: “My doctor says my blood sugar is high. Research tips to reduce it.” -> it not only replies with tips, it also proactively builds a custom app (that you own and control) for tracking your blood sugar (measurements, meals, reminders, charts, etc.). You can edit it by describing changes (“add a weekly trend graph,” “don’t nag me after 8pm,” etc.).

This doesn’t fully solve your Big Co control issue (they own the flagship models today), but open-weight + local options keep improving. I'm hopeful we have a chance to tip the scales back toward co-owner and participant.

That always-on device? To get critical mass, instead of just the nerds, you'd need it to ship with devices which are always-on, like routers/gateways, smart TV's. Then you're back to being at the mercy of centralized companies who also don't love patching their security vulnerabilities.

https://github.com/blue-monads/potatoverse

HTTP requires always-on + always-discoverable infrastructure

It's all over the place.

Here's my small contribution to that. https://github.com/micro/mu - an app platform without ads, algorithms or tracking.

You can’t run your own email server. All other large email providers will consider your self hosted emails as spam by default. It understandable why they took this stance (due to actual spam) but it is also awfully convenient it also increases their market power.

We are now at the whim of large corps even if we get a custom domain with them.

I have tried to get them to publish markdown sites using GitHub pages, but the pain of having to git commit and do it via desktop was the blocker.

So I recently made them a mobile app called JekyllPress [0] with which they can publish their posts similar to WordPress mobile app. And now a bunch of them regularly publish on GitHub pages. I think with more tools to simplify the publishing process, more people will start using GitHub pages (my app still requires some painful onboarding like creating a repo, enabling GitHub pages and getting PAT, no oAuth as I don't have any server).

[0] https://www.gapp.in/projects/jekyllpress/

There's no point in messing with custom hardware, etc. We could host bunch of redundant p2p access points for everyone, and use p2p portable software for everything.

E.g. I'm building a P2P/F2F Social Media protocol that is very close to syndication platform. https://app.radicle.xyz/nodes/radicle.dpc.pw/rad:zzK566qFsZn... . I'm not saying that it's exactly the same thing as author is looking for, but the technical bits and even functionality are very close.

I guess the author first need to get some stats on content type, use cases, money flows, controls etc and then define the problem that applies to most users of the web.

Keep in mind that, usually a system that evolves through feedback loops, and shaped by forces, doesn't have a major problem as it's evolution has ensured the fit between itself and it's context.

You may call the forces which shape that evolution as evil. But the forces are part of the context that you need to live with. The forces are also a product of that evolution.

The challenge I've always felt, is shared services -- if I'm running infra myself, I can depend upon it, but if someone else is running it, I'm never really sure if I can, which makes external services really hard to rely on and invest into.

Maybe you can get further than expected with individual services? But shared services at some point seem really useful.

I think web2 solved that in an unfortunate way, where you know the corporations operating the services / networks are aligned in some ways but not in others.

But would be great to have shared services that do have better guarantees. Disclaimer, we're working on something in that direction, but really curious what others have seen or thinking in this area.

Simple to use software that empowers us to both read and write hypertext4 and syndicated content

Simple to use software... this would be grand!

Raspberry Pi OS (a Linux distribution based on Debian GNU Linux)

Is this simple? I would contend that it is not. Why do I tell people "buy apple products" as a matter of course? Because they have decent security, great ease of use, and support is an Apple Store away.

They still manage to screw things up.

Look at the emergence of docker as an install method for software on linux. We sing the praises of this as means of software distribution and installation... and yet it's functionally un-usable by normal (read: non technical) people.

Usability needs to make a comeback.

Instead of every single person to maintain an offering a vertical slice through the whole stack, we should make it easier to publish content in the first place.

The real issue that this pushes the burden of maintenance and infrastructure on the individual; But this should be a shared responsibility.

Instead we need:

- A federated content/file system - An open standard for viewer/app definitions (hosted on this system)

This is like talking about how book authors don't need Amazon when you have a printer and glue at home.

I made a content management system (CMS) for some friends years ago which was very easy to use. It's main paradigm was: 1 folder = 1 page. This was very easy for anyone to manage. Files in the folder were rendered in sort order so you could have an image followed by some markdown etc Was so easy to use I never got anyone (mostly non-technical artists) asking how to change something on their site. Most ppl understand how to organise their content as files and folders. It is the easiest UI I've ever seen for a CMS i.e. no UI :P Was going to expand it to read files from a Dropbox folder so they didn't even need FTP but life... It was in PHP, which at the time, all ISPs supported. Setup was: copy code, change files/folders in `/content` dir and your away.

Yeah, sure we need this. The time for it was back in like 2005 at the latest.

The real issue is more existential. Right now we're about to lose the war that requires digital connectivity to live and use modern services. We're going to lose cash payments. If you're going to fight a fight, that is where the effort matters in 2026.

https://inkican.com/mesh-middle-grade-scifi-thriller/

The idealist in me says we should still build a simple to use publishing and discovery system for hypertext that can be self-hosted and self-networked for the day the next generations realize they need it (authoritarian control of the Internet, collapse of social media, infrastructure instability, climate apocalypse, whatever). I suppose my idealism is still pretty pessimistic, but then it is Monday.

Tiny computers are like tiny homes

They totally suck like tiny homes? No, actually they are better than tiny homes. Browser are the #1 reason why you want a computer that's better than a Pi 500. Wanting to play modern games is #2.

We live in a time where people somehow think they cannot make bread without a $400 (USD) bread making machine. We suffer from learned helplessness, paint-by-number syndrome, follow-the-leader syndrome, and cargo-cult thinking. We use recipes instead of developing skills.

Implementing "a web we own" is a hard and difficult problem. The poster is correct that ISP's are a problem. But if this learned helplessness is the top comment on "HACKER" News then there is something seriously wrong with how HN works.

This is NOT about the commenters. This is about a system of interaction - comments on HN - that seems to promote anything but hacking.

My apologies for the "rant" nature of this post, but there is a point here that I believe is worth stating. Or you know, just unfollow me, vote me down, and I probably misspelld some words along the way.

What if I do not wish to be tenant and product? What can I do to change the equation?

Host your own website (on a free server for as long as you can), print out some flyers, paste them around town or pass them around (to bypass the Ad Gods), ask for donations to pay the growing costs of bandwidth etc. as you get more users?

Ultimately it comes to down to convincing people, the ickiest task on earth :<

Majority(>50%) of people have no idea what an OS is, you cannot expect then to care about self-hosting.

People(me included) do what is easier/cheaper, maybe down the line there are principles or ideology in the decision making.

I do not bother to read the complete article, by your actions you are a tenant/product, better lead by example.

https://github.com/mjdave/katipo

Also, you don't even have the rights to lay 'em wires wherever you see fit.

https://reticulum.network/

Yet your approach is appallingly low on the other side of the spectrum. I've been in IT for the past 25 years. I have yet to see a non-IT person who knows what dedicated IP is. If you are not publishing it on the internet, then what's the point?

I've seen plenty of companies where the owner just had a read-only shared drive, where people can rummage thru a pack of PDFs. This' was all fine with that.

You have to understand, manage and work with the complexities of the tools, and offer tools quite enough for the task. It's alright to offer what you do to an engineer who has a spare Pi and a couple of days to kill. But it's quite useless for anyone else to adopt.

I publish this site via GitHub Pages

Okay, and that depends on an entire economy and infrastructure of privately owned switching, other network equipment, fiber optic, etc, etc, etc, -- not to mention that if GitHub did not have, as a private company, a profit motive, they wouldn't even bother to offer the service you're using.

Sure, yes, rebuild the world but if you want it to be free like open source, you'll also need to make it free like beer -- and that means you'll need to work for free, too.

I support the aim. I acknowledge the problems. I'm just so frustrated by these silly oversimplifications of how to solve it.

Of course, I am asking bad faith questions here. I know the author is fully aware that the WWW is free and available to all. I don't assume any maliciousness here, but the author is not being honest about their intent. They know you can just put a website out there, but that's not the problem. The problem is that they won't get 2.5 million views, 100,000 interactions, and 1000 comments. They want a more open web, like it was back in the day. But then you remind them that back then having 1000 views on your entire site (let alone any single page) was considered successful, and that's not what they meant. The problem is that everyone wants to eat their cake and have it, too.

You either get a small web, where page views are counted in the hundreds, or you get locked into the big players and get the views you want. I, for one, choose the former.

The issue with publishing content has always been censorship. Anyone in power has incentives to apply as much censorship as they can. It's never been a technical problem.

The problem is in the environment but also the user behavior. Unless you can provide a convincing argument to change both by presenting an actual improvement then its farting in the wind

And self-hosting personal services makes sense and we're able to do that.

BUT, we don't own the connections. There's always going to be shared infrastructure for connecting these devices worldwide, and without an ideal state of Communism or utopian capitalism we're not going to own them or want to be responsible for them. Any kind of service that depends on a central database is not going to be communally owned.

Ownership is an economic problem, the technical aspect is merely interesting. Bitcoin might be a great example of this.

Like, suppose some really good personal server software existed. Suppose there were an OS-plus-app-repository platform, akin to linux plus snapcraft, but aimed solely at people who want to host a blog or email server despite knowing nothing and being willing to learn nothing. It installs on to a raspberry pi as easy as Windows. It figures out how to NAT out of your cable modem for you. It does all the disk partitioning and apt-gets and chmods, you just open the companion app on your phone and hit the Wordpress button and presto, you've got a blog. You hit the Minecraft button and you've got your own minecraft server, without having to learn what "-Xms2G -Xmx6G" means. It updates itself automatically, runs server components in sandboxes so they can't compromise each other, and it's crack-proof enough that you can store your bitcoins on it. Etc, etc.

If that existed, we wouldn't have to write essays about freedom and so forth to get people to buy it, they'd buy it just because it's there. I mean, look at those digital picture frames - they cost more than a rasbpi and are way less useful, and half the people I know got or gave them for christmas. Why? Because they're neat and they cost less than a hundred bucks and they require no knowledge or effort. If a server that can host your blog were that easy, it'd get adopted too, and we'd be on a path to some kind of distributed social media FB replacement. Imagine the software you could write, if you were allowed to assume that every user had a server to host it on!

The problem is, that software doesn't exist and it's not clear how it would ever get made. It'd be a huge effort (possibly "Google building Android" sized) and the extant open source efforts along these lines lack traction, mostly due to the chicken-and-egg problem of any new platform that needs apps to be useful. And until it exists, any kind of neighborhood-internet-collective-power-to-the-people dream has to necessarily begin with hoping that millions of people will spontaneously decide to spend their precious free time doing systems administration.

Not to shit on a fine essay that I mostly agree with. It just seems like, without figuring out the software, this is daydreaming.

There are 2 webs:

- the web site, to serve noscript/basic (x)html, namely basic HTML forms which can be augmented with <video> and <audio> nowadays, namely it serves web _pages_. It was made super modular, you have browsers not handling CSS, and it is fine for _pages_ with a semantic 2D table (implicit navigation even for braille browsers). Web engines there, are more than reasonable to write an alternative of, even a plain CSS renderer (look at netsurf browser), only text (lynx/edbrowse/etc), graphic (links2/elinks/etc). In the end, 'HTML' is not perfect (like CSS), a bit of a mess actually, that's why they tried an XML representation, a failure because it was literaly sabotaged by... "Big Co" or in the web realm, the 'whatng cartel': I remember their web engines were a pain to use xhtml to develop even a simple page... but not with html... curiously. That said, mistakes were made also on the "w3c" side: the 'semantic web', a real abomination of delirious complexity, which I think is what actually made people jump on the "whatng" train, what a disaster. Now, HTML has been back with its weird(shabby?) parsing, but this was kind of 'cleaned up' and much more rigorously defined.

- the web app: the abomination. Basically, only gigantic and insanely complex software can make a web app work (including their SDK), aka only the web engines from Big Co, here 'the whatng cartel'. It is getting worse, it is said web apps are more and more requiring only one web engine to 'properly work' (often gogol blink), and suspicions are very strong at this is made _on purpose_ (I remember the day when gmail.com did disable their noscript/basic (x)html web interface... then POP3 not a long time ago... I guess you all see where this is going). In this realm, there is near ZERO possibility to create a _real-life_ alternative without a bunch a developers laser focused on that for one billion years. I have been wishing for an alternative web engine I could build from source with a simple SDK, does not exist, and even the few attempts here and there are _not_ doing that: they lean towards super complex syntax computer languages (c++ and similar), hence a failure right from the start.

The 'web3'? A lean javascript engine (for instance quickjs, but there are others), with a small set of OS basic abstraction APIs, and a few 'accelerated' specialized APIs (vector drawing, pixel drawing blitter, video decoding, glyph drawing, etc). First problem: nobody will agree an those interfaces (they would have to be as simple as possible), and the 'whatng cartel' will make sure their are useless...

Or a even simpler "HTML" (probably the same with CSS)? "markdown" like the article suggest? Would it have enough expressive power? Again, nobody will agree on the format and will want to make its own.

A good middle ground is to work with a 'subset' of HTML: rought on the edge, but would do a good enough job for nearly all online services out-there, whatever the platform. Nearly 100% of the online services were running on that a few years back, and with <video> and <audio>, it could be even closer than 100% nowadays.

And there is the danger of the 'mobile app only': there, the only way out is to regulate and enforce the availability of a small, stable in time, set of as simple as possible protocols and file formats to allow reasonable efforts at developping an 'app' for an alternative platform (elf/linux, *BSD, fooOS, etc).

think when a significant number of individuals and cooperatives own the hardware and uses simpler software we can impact the Web and Internet in a positive way. That's my hypothesis.

this man lives away with the fairies. i need read not a single word more

Tailscale and similar overlay networks have made the "accessible from anywhere" part way easier than it used to be. The missing piece is still discovery. RSS was the closest we got to decentralized discovery, and we collectively let it rot. Maybe it's time to bring it back properly.