Hacker News Reader

Comment by _nosewings_ | Hacker News Reader

IMO, the Web could stand to be a little bit harder to use.

I've, unrealistically wanted there to be "read only" access where someone would then apply to some organization demonstrating aptitude for write access.

I'm just joking but then again I'm really not

Why?

To filter out idiots and the lazy. 'Normies'.

Here is where I consider myself a segregationist. Give them their web: Facebook, YouTube, Google, et al. -- leave me out of normie net.

You needn't join in. You are free to segregate yourself.

Are they? You still are in same infrastructure and legal framework. Thats like saying you are free not visiting neighbouring apartments. Their "influence" (smoke, noise) is still leaking to your space. Same with web. Like facebook negatively affecting separated web forums.

You can find another infrastructure and legal framework like Project Gemini, and I'm sure other separatist protocols will pop up in the future.

Snobbism aside, I would gladly give up on some "usability" for a passive web (basically raw HTML or even Gopher or Gemini) and a separate active web (basically a proper virtual machine perhaps like Squeak/Pharo).

But as soon as you cut off ways to make the Web more "engaging", it makes it far less interesting for the ads market, so less contents. Even individual content producers (e.g. Youtubers, Twitchers) look for monetization these days.

> and a separate active web (basically a proper virtual machine perhaps like Squeak/Pharo).

Something like WebAssembly, then?

AFAICT WebAssembly is in the continuum of HTML/CSS/JS, and is intended to "make things faster", so there is no reason to separate things that are essentially text and medias from things that are essentially programs.

In other words, WebAssembly won't cut the Gordian knot, in my opinion.

I bet this is related to Eternal September

Reply on news.ycombinator.com