Most active commenters
  • WesolyKubeczek(4)
  • zozbot234(4)
  • kstrauser(3)
  • throwhauser(3)
  • johannes1234321(3)
  • (3)

←back to thread

622 points ColinWright | 102 comments | | HN request time: 2.615s | source | bottom
1. kstrauser ◴[] No.30079330[source]
I sure hope that's right. It was the best feeling in the world to stand up an Apache server on my Amiga, and later my little FreeBSD server, and see my friends viewing the website I was hosting on my dialup connection. It wasn't pretty, it wasn't elegant, and it certainly wasn't fast, but it was mine. I made that. From installing the server to writing the HTML, I owned that service from end to end and had completely freedom to do whatever I wanted with it.

That's what I want the Internet to look like for my younger family and friends. It'll probably never happen exactly this way, but I can picture someone running an IPv6-only service on their phone to impress their friends. I know what their smile would look like because that was once my smile, too.

replies(14): >>30079383 #>>30079412 #>>30079441 #>>30079505 #>>30079550 #>>30079551 #>>30079596 #>>30079689 #>>30079823 #>>30080525 #>>30080756 #>>30080986 #>>30082530 #>>30085966 #
2. pratnala ◴[] No.30079383[source]
Yeah no, I wish we don't go back to that. It doesn't scale at all.
replies(7): >>30079397 #>>30079407 #>>30079417 #>>30079452 #>>30079471 #>>30080013 #>>30080076 #
3. _jal ◴[] No.30079397[source]
Why does it need to?

You are not Amazon. In the unlikely event you become Amazon, you will be able to rearchitect. Trust me, Amazon did.

replies(1): >>30079508 #
4. Guest42 ◴[] No.30079407[source]
True, but I think the point was to be original and random and perhaps be popular as a result, rather than tailor everything for popularity.
5. InefficientRed ◴[] No.30079412[source]
I still run a half dozen VMs with genuinely ancient LAMP stacks and CGI code on a 5 year old desktop in my basement. People use those sites. Really the only thing that changed in last couple decades is that Docker makes admining those servers 1000x easier.

The old web never went away, and the "new old web" will either fail to become popular or well become the "new new web". Eternal September is a social phenomenon and can't be solved with technology.

replies(1): >>30079509 #
6. mdoms ◴[] No.30079417[source]
Not everything needs to scale.
7. fullshark ◴[] No.30079441[source]
> I sure hope that's right.

Yeah it's nostalgia speaking here, there's always gonna be hobbyists but the internet is now gonna be what it is today, massive conglomerates fighting for attention/eyeballs and monetizing it either through ads or pay services.

8. emptybottle ◴[] No.30079452[source]
HTML scales exceptionally well
9. adamrezich ◴[] No.30079471[source]
nimforum*, which powers the official Nim forums, doesn't scale for shit, yet totally works for the scale of that community. not everything needs to massively scale, and, in fact, I think the mistaken belief that everything has to scale has led to many people being dissuaded from building smaller communities like back in The Old Days.

* https://github.com/nim-lang/nimforum

10. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.30079505[source]
I'm sympathetic. My first personal website (after a couple of, ahem, not personal ones) was about the film "The English Patient", and yes, I know that smile.

However, I think you're making a mistake that I also make quite often, of conflating the use and mastery of the technology required with the actual end goal.

Lots of people might like to create their own dedicated websites focused on some particular interest of their own. Very few of them have any interest in Apache, Amigas, FreeBSD, servers, operating systems, bandwidth, IPv6 or any of the technology that would underpin them doing this.

Hence ... Squarespace ;)

We (computer technologists in general, and web folk in specific) failed to make running servers a trivial matter, and as a result in 2022, the honest truth is that running your own website no longer has much to do with any of the skills we might have smiled about back in the day. At least not for 99% of the people who don't already do it but might somehow have an interest in the idea.

replies(1): >>30086147 #
11. gary_0 ◴[] No.30079508{3}[source]
Never worry too much about problems you want to have.
12. na85 ◴[] No.30079509[source]
Who is your ISP?
replies(1): >>30079581 #
13. throwhauser ◴[] No.30079550[source]
How can a small website cope with GDPR compliance though? The rules that sprang up to constrain the social-media behemoths seem onerous for anyone but them to comply with.
replies(3): >>30079576 #>>30079601 #>>30080059 #
14. matheusmoreira ◴[] No.30079551[source]
Yeah. That sense of ownership has been lost. Now corporations own everything. Nobody wants a domain, they want a @name on some social media platform. Nobody wants their own website, they want to post on social media. ISPs have cgNAT now, nobody is directly connected to the internet. Everything is just so boring.
replies(3): >>30080349 #>>30080425 #>>30080822 #
15. matheusmoreira ◴[] No.30079576[source]
All you have to do is not collect any data. Don't set any cookies.
replies(1): >>30080279 #
16. InefficientRed ◴[] No.30079581{3}[source]
Verizon FIOS residential fiber.

(I've never had an ISP that allowed hosting HTTP servers in its TOS. But I've always hosted HTTP servers, and I've never had any issues. FWIW Gemini servers are also servers.)

replies(1): >>30079970 #
17. amelius ◴[] No.30079596[source]
The thing that is missing in the DIY website space is discoverability.

Fix that, and you might have a chance of competing with big corporations.

(In the old days we had "web rings", but I'm afraid that's not going to work today)

replies(4): >>30079834 #>>30079850 #>>30079967 #>>30080310 #
18. WesolyKubeczek ◴[] No.30079601[source]
By not collecting data it has no need for, and not passing that data on to third parties? By providing an ability to delete any user account, and for editing any personal information? By not using EBCDIC to store said information?

Are you making this more complicated than it needs to be?

replies(3): >>30079666 #>>30079754 #>>30138554 #
19. throwhauser ◴[] No.30079666{3}[source]
> Are you making this more complicated than it needs to be?

I'm not sure. I guess if one trusts the default logging settings on the server software to be compliant, and only uses static HTML, maybe that's adequate? But as soon as any third-party code or data provided by some other server gets involved, it's hard to know what might be logged elsewhere as a result of visiting your site.

I mean, would an old-fashioned web visitor counter be compliant? It's tracking something in order to provide that number.

replies(2): >>30079839 #>>30080264 #
20. jlarocco ◴[] No.30079689[source]
I think there's some kind of fallacy there.

Nothing's really changed, in the sense that there's nothing stopping you (or anybody else) from running your own server that serves up simplehand-written HTML, if that's what you want to do.

You can probably even do it on your phone, but I wouldn't hold my breath for the app to get accepted to any official app stores.

Personally, I think the UI on phones is atrocious, and would never want to use one for any kind of development work, but to each their own.

replies(1): >>30079840 #
21. lol768 ◴[] No.30079754{3}[source]
> Are you making this more complicated than it needs to be?

A large proportion of folks on HN seem to think GDPR is "out to get" everyone rather than a set of common sense regulations that should not at all be a concern for an individual who's serving a blog or personal site and doing nothing to collect PII/track their visitors.

I don't understand why this view is so prevalent.

replies(2): >>30079940 #>>30080144 #
22. wolpoli ◴[] No.30079823[source]
The barrier of entry was actually lower than that. We didn't need to stand up an Apache server. We could just sign up for a Geocities/Xoom/Tripod account and upload HTML or use the built in site editor to create content.

Somewhere along the way, people stopped building well organized sites and started producing chronologically organized writings and content. These chronologically organized articles and content have dominated web content and social media ever since.

replies(7): >>30080325 #>>30080410 #>>30080427 #>>30080714 #>>30080960 #>>30082300 #>>30085341 #
23. dvtrn ◴[] No.30079834[source]
Which is why I wish the webmention had taken off more than it did

https://www.w3.org/TR/webmention/

24. jrochkind1 ◴[] No.30079839{4}[source]
You tell us you have no idea what third-party code you add might be tracking from users. And say this is a reason why you/they should be allowed to do it? (With "it" being... anything the third-party sites want to at all?)
25. vecinu ◴[] No.30079840[source]
> Personally, I think the UI on phones is atrocious, and would never want to use one for any kind of development work, but to each their own.

When the OP said

> but I can picture someone running an IPv6-only service on their phone to impress their friends

I think he meant actually running the serving of the content from the phone's hardware, not actually doing the development itself on the phone.

26. zozbot234 ◴[] No.30079850[source]
We also had curated directories, DMOZ being the most common. Starting a bunch of DMOZ-like, federating (i.e. sharing and trusting one another to provide high-quality links, semi-comprehensive directories might be the quickest and most effective way of bringing "the old Internet" back to life. This might even become an acknowledged part of the Fediverse, if it leveraged the existing Web standards wrt. structured "third-party annotation" of outside Web resources, as issued e.g. by the W3C WebAnnotation Working Group. https://www.w3.org/annotation
27. reificator ◴[] No.30079940{4}[source]
> I don't understand why this view is so prevalent.

Fearmongering from those actually affected by these common sense regulations.

28. kradeelav ◴[] No.30079967[source]
Why not, with web-rings?

I don't mean that snarkily: I have at least 2-3 webrings on my personal link page, and neocities is home to literally hundreds more.

replies(1): >>30080334 #
29. ravenstine ◴[] No.30079970{4}[source]
Same, although I'm no longer doing what you're doing. With today's average bandwidth usage, I don't know why an ISP would seriously give a crap about someone hosting an HTTP server on their home IP unless it was dealing with some insane amount of traffic.
replies(1): >>30080247 #
30. ravenstine ◴[] No.30080013[source]
LOL If anything, a more barebones internet scales better. The less data you're sending, the more connections you can handle simultaneously, and the less code you'll need. When communication is more decentralized, there's not much of a need for most sites to need to think that much about scaling. We don't need the next Facebook or the next Reddit. I'd love to go back to more independent forums. Maybe with something better than vBulletin, at least.
31. kstrauser ◴[] No.30080059[source]
As a practical matter, GDPR doesn't apply to personal sites outside of EU. They're not going to go after some personal site in Iowa, and if they did, so what? After the massive PR debacle that would ensue, the EU regulators wouldn't actually be able to do anything about it.

The CCPA doesn't apply to personal, not-for-profit sites.

32. coldtea ◴[] No.30080076[source]
Who the fuck cares if it scales? It's better if it doesn't scale. Scale is what brought us Facebook and monopolies like Google.
33. WesolyKubeczek ◴[] No.30080144{4}[source]
Companies whose bottom lines are affected by GDPR are screaming that it's too difficult to understand and apply. Many HackerNews, especially for some reason North American ones, are parroting what they hear in this echo chamber without giving it a glimpse of a thought.

I think we underestimate the power of PR way too often.

Last I've read GDPR itself it's been way clearer than any of the Terms of Service written by the very same companies who complain that GDPR is too incomprehensible.

replies(2): >>30080280 #>>30080362 #
34. johannes1234321 ◴[] No.30080247{5}[source]
since they want to sell the more expensive business plan. And forbidding something in the terms makes it easy for them to cancel your account in case they have a different reason.
replies(1): >>30080346 #
35. corobo ◴[] No.30080264{4}[source]
You can +1 a database `views` column without storing anything at all about the user. If you’re just doing that you’re good to go
replies(1): >>30080403 #
36. johannes1234321 ◴[] No.30080279{3}[source]
Setting cookies is fine. If they are needed.

You need a session cookie for the login function the user uses? - Use a cookie. No banner needed.

The user puts something in their shopping basket? - Use a session cookie. No banner needed.

You want to store information, not required, in order to identify the user again even though they didn't login, maybe to share the identity with an ad network? - You need a cookie banner where the user can opt out easily.

replies(1): >>30080552 #
37. ◴[] No.30080280{5}[source]
38. burrows ◴[] No.30080310[source]
I think it’s all missing forums, places (both public and private) where people from different “home servers” can communicate.
39. BlueTemplar ◴[] No.30080325[source]
Yeah, I found it weird that the article called blogs "Web 1.0", I'm pretty sure that it was them that were first hailed as the new "Web 2.0" ?
replies(1): >>30082754 #
40. warkdarrior ◴[] No.30080334{3}[source]
Web-rings are linked lists, slow to navigate. Google gives you hashtable access to the web.
replies(3): >>30080441 #>>30080574 #>>30083499 #
41. eppp ◴[] No.30080346{6}[source]
We make people pay for a business account and extra on top to get a static ip. The amount of support from people that know just enough to think they need to do home hosting is a multiple more than a typical home user.

The people that actually know what they are doing have to pay more but I never hear from them.

replies(2): >>30080526 #>>30080747 #
42. BlueTemplar ◴[] No.30080349[source]
cgNAT is going to go away, even for the rare ISPs that use it, as more connections become IPv6-only.
43. rhizome ◴[] No.30080362{5}[source]
I don't think "parroting" is very charitable. What I think is going on is that we have a bunch of people who are seeing the internet driven by ads that are only a synthesis of print ads and TV commercials. The fact that the medium of advertising (and business itself, evidenced by all the people who say that's the only way businesses can be run anymore) resembles the past so much means the value of participating in it at all for Computer Science and nerdly interests in general is contained on the backend, in the surveillance. I think the resistance to this (not to mention the suit against Google to prevent them from eliminating third-party cookies from Chrome) is because advertising becomes boring without the PII shenanigans. If you can't slice and dice people's activities into predictions about what they're going to click on if not buy, then what did I acquire these student loans for, to write HTML and JavaScript like a schmoe?

Of course reality is more particularized and varied, but in the big picture I think GDPR and other threats to surveillance advertising is treated as an existential threat to an entire class of skills, skills that can buy houses.

44. erulabs ◴[] No.30080403{5}[source]
I mean, most "unique view counters" store the users IP address, so that would be right out. I'm fairly sure even being aware of what complying with a complex legal documents implies constitutes enough of a complication that it's worth mentioning.

It is a complication, but I believe it's worded so that small companies and individuals are immune from its consequences.

replies(3): >>30080494 #>>30083502 #>>30086229 #
45. PragmaticPulp ◴[] No.30080410[source]
> The barrier of entry was actually lower than that. We didn't need to stand up an Apache server. We could just sign up for a Geocities/Xoom/Tripod account and upload HTML or use the built in site editor to create content.

Reading this thread feels like everyone is anchored to whatever methods were popular at the time they entered the internet as being the peak. The BBS people think it was all downhill after BBS declined. The self-hosting people think it was all downhill after sites like Geocities/Tripod/Xoom became popular. The Geocities people think it was all downhill after blogging platforms became popular. The blogging people think it was all downhill when social media became popular.

I think there's a heavy dose of nostalgia coloring the opinions in this thread. What people really yearn for isn't Geocities or Usenet or whatever. It's the feeling of excitement that came from first getting immersed in the internet when it was all new to you.

> Somewhere along the way, people stopped building well organized sites and started producing chronologically organized writings and content. These chronologically organized articles and content have dominated web content and social media ever since.

I don't see the problem with chronological ordering. Most of those platforms and sites make it easy to search for related posts. Worst case, the author can just drop some hyperlinks into the posts to tie them together.

Curated and organized websites tend to fall out relevancy and decay very rapidly. Might as well just let people post as they see fit and then we can find it by searching.

replies(7): >>30080476 #>>30080487 #>>30080492 #>>30080571 #>>30080583 #>>30080848 #>>30084604 #
46. PragmaticPulp ◴[] No.30080425[source]
> That sense of ownership has been lost. Now corporations own everything. Nobody wants a domain, they want a @name on some social media platform. Nobody wants their own website, they want to post on social media.

I don't think the self-hosting people with their own domains ever went away. They're all still out there.

The difference is that the internet isn't just for those people any more. Everyone is online, and the average person has no intention of learning how to host and maintain and design their own website when they can just as easily post the same content on an easy to use platform.

A lot of the nostalgia in this thread isn't so much for the technologies of years past. It's for an internet that was just for us nerds, without the regular people participating.

replies(3): >>30080530 #>>30085213 #>>30086333 #
47. netizen-936824 ◴[] No.30080427[source]
The barrier to entry may have been lower if you were willing to host on someone else's hardware, but from my reading that's not truly decentralized or owned by the user such as in the spirit of the parent comment.
48. MereInterest ◴[] No.30080441{4}[source]
Slow to navigate, but far less vulnerable to corruption. Each link was intentionally made by a human, vouching for its integrity and usefulness. Each link is followed only if I trust a site enough to believe its recommendation.
49. hutzlibu ◴[] No.30080476{3}[source]
"I think there's a heavy dose of nostalgia coloring the opinions in this thread. What people really yearn for isn't Geocities or Usenet or whatever. It's the feeling of excitement that came from first getting immersed in the internet when it was all new to you."

Certainly there is nostalgia.

But back then the web was not controlled by add financed mega companies - and the dreams of the teens using it, were not mainly to become a influencer. Meaning getting somehow famous and then sell that attention for - advertisement.

50. ◴[] No.30080487{3}[source]
51. majormajor ◴[] No.30080492{3}[source]
I agree with this. You can still do all those things! And there are still people doing all those things. It's just not novel or exciting to us anymore. And I might be more disappointed now that my Geocities about a comic book never gets any hits, while there are influencers on Instagram and TikTok making $$$$, than I was in 1999 when that wasn't really conceivable. (And then there are the neat things that weren't even possible back then - Roblox gets a lot of shit for its financial model these days, but 1999 me would've eaten up an easy-to-use game programming interface to show off cool shit to my friends back then.)

However, I do think there is a lot of lost value due to today's "search for it" attitude replacing curation. Yes, curation takes a lot of work, but that also makes it more robust against SEO spam and such. But I also don't think it added enough value that people would pay for it - original web companies were benefiting from wildly optimistic funding numbers for "eyeballs" and display ad rates that are never coming back.

replies(1): >>30080566 #
52. ◴[] No.30080494{6}[source]
53. SMAAART ◴[] No.30080525[source]
I want my BBS!

<blink>This text could blink</blink>

replies(1): >>30080636 #
54. AndrewUnmuted ◴[] No.30080526{7}[source]
This sounds just like my experience with Comcast Business.

Except, because I came with my own modem, they won't let me get the static IP. They would need to come back to my place and replace my modem with their own version of that same modem, they tell me, before they will be willing to take my $50/month to give me a static IP.

I told them I would agree to this if they would at least not charge me for the modem, but apparently this is not possible. I might try again one day, but really am just waiting until my area gets the local electric company's fiber connection they'll be rolling out in a couple of years.

replies(1): >>30088512 #
55. jkhdigital ◴[] No.30080530{3}[source]
> A lot of the nostalgia in this thread isn't so much for the technologies of years past. It's for an internet that was just for us nerds, without the regular people participating.

Pretty much. It’s painful to watch the mass commodification of a technology you love, but that’s how the world advances.

56. MereInterest ◴[] No.30080552{4}[source]
Not only that, but storing information to identify the user again requires affirmative consent. GDPR doesn't just require that the user can opt out of tracking, but that any tracking occurs only after the user has freely given informed consent.
replies(1): >>30083817 #
57. zozbot234 ◴[] No.30080566{4}[source]
> But I also don't think it added enough value that people would pay for it

There was non-commercial curation back in the day, DMOZ was the most prominent example. In general, commercialism was very rare on the early Internet. "Business" sites were thought of as somewhat exceptional, not the norm.

58. myself248 ◴[] No.30080571{3}[source]
Nah, I'm a BBS person and I think it's been all downhill since social media.

(Specifically, Livejournal was the tipping-point between blogging platforms and social media, Myspace was unquestionably downward, Facebook is the antichrist pure and simple.)

I have no problem with chronological or hierarchical content. Whatever the author wants to put out, is their prerogative.

What I have a problem with is walled gardens, stalking-as-a-business-model, and arbitrary automated deplatforming with no recourse.

replies(1): >>30081395 #
59. sseagull ◴[] No.30080574{4}[source]
Slow to navigate, but amenable to “browsing” and finding related pages and sites. Think of it as a built-in recommendation engine.
60. chrononaut ◴[] No.30080583{3}[source]
I agree that nostalgia plays a part, but one could argue that it was at its "peak" in the "early days" and "declining" since (quoted words by whatever definitions as it is all quite subjective). Such that chronologically no matter what time a given person first experienced the Internet, they established the peak at that point since they didn't experience what was before, but they could universally agree that it became worst since their own relative point, and that can be true agnostic of nostalgia. If a given system is reliably getting worse over time for any attribute, the relative peak for a given observer will always be when their first measurement is taken.

You could also work backwards from what you stated. For someone who first experienced digital connectivity via BBSes, would they also state the Geocities "era" was better than the blogging platforms era? Perhaps?

61. partomniscient ◴[] No.30080636[source]
I remember some boards where you had to wait for what seemed like ages to get to the actual main page because you had to wait for some fancy ANSI art to do its thing.
62. XorNot ◴[] No.30080714[source]
The counter point is that the rise of quality search engines has reduced the value of "well organized".

Consider that one of the premier features of the Jetbrains IDE is "search everywhere" which will search command help text for you as well and then return the command as a possible result - much easier to describe what you're trying to do and be led to the exact command, then try to understand the mind of the person who did the categorization.

replies(2): >>30080835 #>>30080936 #
63. buttercraft ◴[] No.30080747{7}[source]
But I'm not allowed to have a business account if I also have HBO. Because I might be having large public viewings at my residence, I guess? Go Cox.
64. FpUser ◴[] No.30080756[source]
>"It wasn't pretty, it wasn't elegant, and it certainly wasn't fast, but it was mine. I made that."

I know the feeling. Even though I use Hetzner and OVH I also host stuff in my home office. Ordered business 1gbps fiber line with static IP for $120 CDN per month for that.

65. arvinsim ◴[] No.30080822[source]
I am pretty sure a lot of people want their own website and domain.

It's just that a lot more inconvenient to have and manage one for most people.

replies(1): >>30083342 #
66. zrm ◴[] No.30080835{3}[source]
> The counter point is that the rise of quality search engines has reduced the value of "well organized".

I wonder how much of this is still true.

Google results from a few years ago were much better than they are now. That's a combination of SEO ruining the results by Google assuming anything not hosted on a megaplatform is suspect and not showing it plus SEO ruining results by still being there in them despite that, but it happened.

If someone made a curated list of interesting small sites by category, it would be a lot more useful now than it was before that happened.

replies(1): >>30081187 #
67. giantrobot ◴[] No.30080848{3}[source]
> Curated and organized websites tend to fall out relevancy and decay very rapidly. Might as well just let people post as they see fit and then we can find it by searching.

Your points about nostalgia I sort of agree with but this part I take issue with. Many sites use blog software which does the whole chronological ordering. Unless the site's particular blog theme exposes archives, a sitemap, or the author meticulously tags (and the theme shows tags) it can be stupid hard to navigate around blog-like sites.

Blog-like sites also tend to have a partial chronological list of posts at the root of the site. If you're writing some personal journal or topical things that makes sense. For someone writing about some particular topic(s) this is a navigation anti-pattern. It doesn't matter if the latest post on Topic A was posted on Monday. As a reader interested in Topic A you want all of the posts on it. Most blog-like sites make this challenging to find or don't expose it.

I don't really like "just search" as a replacement for categorical organization because most search sucks anymore. That might have been ok for Old Google, before the DoubleClicking, but now it's just another navigation anti-pattern.

Interestingly, had Web 2.0 concepts been implemented a bit better by CMSes, navigation of sites could be ably handled by user agents. A site with an OPML/Sitemap XML pointed to with an "alternative" meta tag could let a user agent (or service) build nice navigation for sites automatically no matter how the blog-like CMS organized the HTML.

68. zozbot234 ◴[] No.30080936{3}[source]
It was the rise of tagging and folksonomies (now known as #hashtags) which made the blogs halfway usable. Because they allow you to search within the archived posts for the sub-topic you're interested in.
replies(1): >>30081212 #
69. eloisius ◴[] No.30080960[source]
> Somewhere along the way, people stopped building well organized sites and started producing chronologically organized writings and content.

For news or personal diary-format blogs, it makes sense, but I agree. Why did the blog become the default way to present a page on the internet? Aside from serving as an indicator of 'freshness,' publication date usually has no relation to the content I read. It's weird that most content is organized around publication date by default.

I like reading old bike websites with stories about touring and such published around the 90s [1][2][3]. Most sites back then had a small section called "News" with short blurbs letting readers know about the status of the author, or new content added to the site, but it was not the main content itself. Content was usually organized in a way that makes sense to humans, rather than feed aggregators and content recommender systems.

It's so much better to explore a site by navigation through a few index pages. Ken's site [1] is especially a pleasure to browse. Right on the home page he lists his directories along with straightforward descriptions of what you'll find in them. On a directory page will be a list of pages organized under subheadings, and each one has a brief description. To me, this may be peak internet. It's easy to get a sense of what's there, how to get to the part of it that interests me, and doesn't keep me on a treadmill searching for something I want to read co-mingled with everything else.

I can't help but think that if WordPress was the default when Ken decided to make a website, it would be much worse. Each page does have a tiny 'last updated' date at the bottom, but as a reader 30 years later, the publication date has no relevancy to me any of the content here. It would be a pity to center everything on the site around that minor detail. And adding tags or category labels to blog pages usually doesn't help. It still squishes is all into a feed, just a subset feed.

[1]: https://www.phred.org/~alex/kenkifer/www.kenkifer.com/bikepa...

[2]: https://web.stanford.edu/~jcolwell/

[3]: https://sheldonbrown.com/

replies(1): >>30081545 #
70. d0gsg0w00f ◴[] No.30080986[source]
> I can picture someone running an IPv6-only service on their phone to impress their friends. I know what their smile would look like because that was once my smile, too.

Wow. Do you know if there's any enthusiasts out there doing this? A phone would actually be a great hosting device for tinkerers. It's always on, always connected, and supports IPv6.

replies(2): >>30081298 #>>30081898 #
71. chrisfinazzo ◴[] No.30081187{4}[source]
I have to wonder if the degrading of search results came solely from SEO dark patterns that do more harm than good, or if Google actively believed that small sites were becoming less relevant as social took off. Objectively, looking at PageRank might convince them that Facebook and Twitter were where people were spending time, but that particular firehose is so big it can - and eventually did - dilute nearly all the other relevant results.

Pipe dream: If someone wishes hard enough, maybe we can convince the Apollo guys to leave Yahoo alone so it can return to its roots as (surprise!) a directory.

72. chrisfinazzo ◴[] No.30081212{4}[source]
But wasn't the raison d'etre of Google links to other sites, thereby giving some sense of how popular a given page was?

This helps individual sites, but says little about why the overall quality of links has nosedived. Who they link to continues to matter, except that now there is so much noise this is very difficult to get right unless you are extremely clever, lucky, or probably both.

73. zozbot234 ◴[] No.30081298[source]
A phone is a poor hosting device in a conventional sense, because it's battery powered and keeping the connection up will drain the battery. If you want to P2P-host something via your phone, it should be a service that can somehow piggyback on the ephemeral network connection strategy that mobile devices are already using. The closest thing I've seen to that might be SecureScuttlebutt, but even then it's not ideal. IPFS hosting might also work, but again only on a highly ephemeral basis.
74. AussieWog93 ◴[] No.30081395{4}[source]
I joined in the mid-00s and have to agree.

Big social media and especially recommendation algorithms have ruined much of what made the old Internet fun.

There's no longer the discovery or organic sharing; everything is just shoved down your throat by a soulless algorithm.

replies(1): >>30083469 #
75. rpdillon ◴[] No.30081545{3}[source]
Almost everything I read on the internet is informed by the publish date. One of my biggest frustrations is sites that don't include publish dates because it makes the content 'evergreen'. Really frustrating.
replies(1): >>30083954 #
76. miyuru ◴[] No.30081898[source]
I tested this with my old phone and it certainly worked even on non rooted android but I do not deployed it full time.

There is however this starlink dashboard hosted by awlnx on starlink and its IPv6 only. https://starlink.awlnx.space

77. adrianN ◴[] No.30082300[source]
You can still make a Neocities account and upload HTML.
replies(1): >>30085329 #
78. vmception ◴[] No.30082530[source]
(blockchain, smart contracts, people are experiencing this same feeling again there, many for the first time. they release something on a public utility that others can interact with, and a GUI behind a domain name)
replies(1): >>30084967 #
79. eitland ◴[] No.30082754{3}[source]
Agree.

As far as I remember web 2.0 was all about user generated content spruced up with Ajax experiences:

Blogs (chronological as opposed to more freeform web sites) were arguably the first.

The comments, follows ("blog rolls"), tagging, ratings and third party sites providing the same like del.ico.us and digg.

RSS also was a web 2.0 thing in my mind at least.

I think most people classify Facebook as web 2.0 as well but in my mind they aren't as much web as a silo built on web technology.

80. usrusr ◴[] No.30083342{3}[source]
The subjective reward has gone down though: back in the days of webrings and the visit counter gif cgi, writing some content and then maybe fill in one or two "under construction" placeholders some months later you could easily delude yourself that you were on track to an amazing future. Perhaps not altavista.digital.com amazing, but maybe becoming something like a respected resource in your niche of a niche. Today there are so many lower hanging fruits luring from inside the walled gardens...
81. hypertele-Xii ◴[] No.30083469{5}[source]
Ban algorithmic recommendation. It's the only way people actually start organizing and curating content. You know, like libraries do.
replies(1): >>30084773 #
82. hypertele-Xii ◴[] No.30083499{4}[source]
Maybe being slow to navigate is actually a feature, standing against the endless algorithmic torrent of 5 second tiktok videos and meme doomscrolling.

You're supposed to take your time checking out cool shit people make for the love of it.

83. martin_a ◴[] No.30083502{6}[source]
You could always hash the IP on the client side before sending it to your counter. That way you have no information which you can backtrack to a specific IP and therefore a person.
replies(1): >>30089780 #
84. johannes1234321 ◴[] No.30083817{5}[source]
Yes. If your users create an account with name and address data they need to agree to that data storage.

If your shop just sells them a virtual thing there is no need to collect personal information.

If you ask for the address and more or less directly print it on the label and then delete again it is a bit of an edge case where no explicit confirmation might be needed, however having a good data policy is good practice anyways and then having the extra checkbox in the order flow is not a big deal.

85. robertlagrant ◴[] No.30083954{4}[source]
Hah yes if I can't see a publish date on something I often look for something else. Not saying things need to be formatted/sorted by publish date (which I think is grandparent's actual point) but definitely it helps with contextualising content.
replies(1): >>30084046 #
86. eloisius ◴[] No.30084046{5}[source]
You got my point. I do appreciate the created/modified date on pages, I just prefer content to be organize by something pertinent to the content itself. Sometimes that is the publication date, sometimes it’s something else.
87. bregma ◴[] No.30084604{3}[source]
It's all been downhill ever since the eternal September started.
88. naasking ◴[] No.30084773{6}[source]
Interesting thought I hadn't considered before. Without algorithms, all aggregated content was curated by humans. With the advent of algorithms, a lot of this has probably stopped because humans just can't keep up.

Sometimes that's a good and useful thing, like with search engines. Clearly not always though.

replies(1): >>30087098 #
89. lpcvoid ◴[] No.30084967[source]
It's just that there is nothing of value in regards to blockchain or smart contracts. They are a solution in search for a nonexistent problem, while heating up the planet.
replies(1): >>30087406 #
90. throwaway98700k ◴[] No.30085213{3}[source]
A mix of both. When I see a Medium post by a programmer I feel sad.
91. walterbell ◴[] No.30085329{3}[source]
Works well with static generators.
92. detaro ◴[] No.30085341[source]
What stops you signing up for a boring webhosting package and uploading HTML today?
93. LAC-Tech ◴[] No.30085966[source]
sure hope that's right. It was the best feeling in the world to stand up an Apache server on my Amiga, and later my little FreeBSD server, and see my friends viewing the website I was hosting on my dialup connection. It wasn't pretty, it wasn't elegant, and it certainly wasn't fast, but it was mine. I made that. From installing the server to writing the HTML, I owned that service from end to end and had completely freedom to do whatever I wanted with it.

Isn't this easier to this than it ever was?

Granted, my 'server' is a VM in a server farm thousands of kilometres away, but I installed the server and wrote the HTML. What's even better is that he server was caddy and the html is html5 - both a marked improvement!

94. jjgreen ◴[] No.30086147[source]
Elaine Benes : [quietly] No. I can't do this any more. I can't. It's too long.

Elaine Benes : [yells] Quit telling your stupid story about the stupid desert, and just die already! DIE!

J. Peterman : [surprised] Elaine, you don't like the movie?

Elaine Benes : [shouts] I hate it!

[the audience shushes Elaine]

Elaine Benes : [shouts back] Oh, go to hell!

95. WesolyKubeczek ◴[] No.30086229{6}[source]
As long as you can describe the full extent to which the collected IP addresses are being used and which data they are being correlated with, and use a language comprehensible without requiring a legal degree, you can very easily be compliant. Once you involve an undisclosed number of "trusted partners" and start using weasel words to describe what you're using the data for and who you're giving them to, not so much.

That said, an IP address is a shitty device to detect unique visitors. Session cookies, as long as you aren't trying to correlate them to usage patterns and such, are more reliable (you can tell that this is the same phone jumping networks, or you can tell apart users coming from behind multiple layers of NAT) and anonymous.

96. sumtechguy ◴[] No.30086333{3}[source]
A lot of what used to happen was a form of altruism. You had to be willing to give up time, money, and hardware to dedicate running many of these tings. That works if you are getting along with everyone. But once you get a 'troll', or some demanding person, or need money because lost job, etc that altruism wears extremely thin. So outsourcing it to some other company to pay, for and keep the software up to date is extremely alluring. There are still people willing to do it. But they will come and go but mostly 'go'. But if you think about it, it makes sense. Someone new coming in is not going to pick up 20+ year old BBS software unless they really want that. They are going to rock onto existing platform and start there. Then in 10 years their members will realize 'if you dont own it you are renting it, if you are renting it you are at the whim of the owner'.
97. Mezzie ◴[] No.30087098{7}[source]
I was one of those humans, and it's more that the algorithms were initially designed under the assumption that we would keep doing that work for free, forever, but once the communities we were doing it for were destroyed, why bother?

Also there was a lot of pushback and poo-pooing the human element; lots of well-regarded (at the time) people saying that there was no future in human-curated content, and I know that I (as a young person) believed them. Look at the cool stuff they were making; they have to be right! They're smart adults, they would know, right?

It just stopped being fun to curate.

98. vmception ◴[] No.30087406{3}[source]
Very few blockchains cause carbon emissions more than say browsers. A smart contract deployed on one that uses a proof of work system with a lot of competition can be deployed on another that does not, vote with your code
99. kstrauser ◴[] No.30088512{8}[source]
Much as I loathe Comcast residential service, their business service has been solid except for that ludicrous requirement.
100. BenjiWiebe ◴[] No.30089780{7}[source]
Except there's so few IPs (v4) you could just bruteforce it in not too much time.
replies(1): >>30092395 #
101. WesolyKubeczek ◴[] No.30092395{8}[source]
There are different kinds of hashes. You can, for example, assign numbers to your incoming IPs. The first one to come in gets 1, the second gets 2, and so on. Numbers zero out at midnight, correlation between them and real IPs are at the load balancer. Good luck bruteforcing these.
102. throwhauser ◴[] No.30138554{3}[source]
Days late and this will probably go unread by anyone, but further evidence that GDPR compliance is complicated, and it's difficult to avoid fines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30135264 "GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by using Google Fonts"

It's absolutely true that using Google Fonts will cause a user's IP to be shared with Google, and that this is a violation of the GDPR. But having to review content at this level of detail is burdensome for individuals or small organizations putting anything onto the internet.