Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.infosystems.www.misc > #297

(non-)mainstream web and its costs

Show all headers | View raw

>>>>> On 2025-08-16, Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-08-11, Doc O'Leary wrote:

 >>> I'm contending that the problem is not that there are different
 >>> cultures, but that there are inevitable culture clashes.

 >> Whatever little I can do about culture clashes ("explain your
 >> point, try to understand the other party, do not escalate"),
 >> I believe I do.  Other than that, I find it unproductive to be
 >> concerned with things I can do nothing about.

 > Yet that's exactly what much of your position seems to be about.

	My position is this:

 1> More importantly, am /I/ part of your target audience?  If so,
 1> I fully expect for your website(s) to be accessible to a user
 1> agent implementing HTTP/1.1 and HTML Living Standard.  [...]

	To which you've responded:

 2> I think that's a false premise.  Why should I be trying to limit my
 2> audience to some "target" subset?  [...]

	In the subthread that followed, I've tried to provide examples
	showing that whether it's your intent, or if you even realize it,
	you /do/ limit your audience: whether by using JS, or by using
	English, or by whatever other choice or non-choice you make...

 > Just because the Internet has connected the world doesn't mean that
 > everyone has the resources to cater to 8 billion people making
 > 8 billion different choices.

	... And by this point, I frankly cannot read it other than to
	suggest we're, broadly speaking, in agreement on this point.

[1] news:Mf78sQ4PEdT8GlJ_@violet.siamics.net
[2] news:107dsmb$2u9o3$1@dont-email.me

 > The cost of choosing a "non-mainstream" browser is on the people who
 > make that choice.

	So, I'm paying if I use a non-mainstream browser, but I'm /also/
	paying if I'm using a mainstream one, right?  Well, in that case,
	I find the former choice to be way more affordable in the end.

	Consider [3] http://mdpi.com/2227-7080/8/2/18 for instance:

 3> Internet-related electricity consumption is rising rapidly as
 3> global Internet users spend more than 6.5 h per day online.  [...]
 3> Globally, uBlock Origin could save consumers more than $1.8
 3> billion/year.  Open source ad blockers are a potentially effective
 3> technology for energy conservation.

	And guess what?  Despite complaints [4], Google Chrome apparently
	dropped support for uBlock Origin.  (Though there seem to be a
	less functional fork.)

[4] http://eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-manifest-v3-deceitful-and-threatening

	Conversely, when using a non-JS browser, you don't need an ad
	blocker in the first place.

	Or consider this case.  Suppose that my employer gives me an
	assignment that involves digging some information on the web.
	That digging in turn involves watching ads (because of the
	above), as well as solving captchas, etc.

	Now, don't get me wrong: I don't have a habit of complaining for
	being paid, so if my employer is willing to pay for someone to
	solve captchas, it might as well be me.  Bear in mind, however,
	that all my employments to date were in the public sector...

	So, who's paying for whose choices here?  Because the way I see
	it, someone decides that their site needs a "DDoS protection,"
	and it's the taxpayers that end up paying for it.

	Not that I'd mind much if it were their choice, but I'm pretty
	certain many of them don't even realize that a portion of their
	taxes is spent so captchas and ads might thrive on the modern web.

	The same reasoning would apply were I involved in the private
	sector: if the work you've hired me or my employer to do involves
	any web reading (and oftentimes it /does/), it's /you/ who'll
	end up paying for a. the choice of web authors to employ captchas
	or use ad networks, and b. the choice of Google to end support
	for "Manifest V2."  The customer pays the cost of work done,
	and that cost tends to be higher if it requires a Big 3 browser
	rather than a lightweigh, non-JS one.

 >> My only "problem" with "modern" web is my indifference to it.
 >> Someone starts talking about Facebook this, or Youtube that,
 >> and, frankly, I'm at a loss how to feel and what to suggest.
 >> I tend to respond along the lines of "if it hurts you to use it,
 >> then don't?" but I can't say that's received all that well.

 > But *none* of that has to do with the technologies used and
 > *everything* to do with the cultures those sites promote.  While
 > it could be argued that "doom scrolling" dynamic content is a
 > large contributing factor, that doesn't make those modern web
 > features *themselves* a problem.  Social media sites didn't invent
 > manufactured outrage, trolling, or any other toxic behavior.

	Personally, I find the inability to move elsewhere to be perhaps
	the most important factor.  When you're fed up with one phpBB
	instance, you can move to another; perhaps even start your own.
	It isn't as easy with Youtube or Facebook.

	Starting a community on, say, Facebook is "free" only in the
	sense that there's no upfront payment involved.  In the long
	term, you /will/ pay for it: through increased bandwidth usage
	and electricity consumption, through costs of hardware upgrades
	and ewaste disposal, through costs of dealing with antisocial
	behavior and of finally moving elsewhere, etc.

 >> My point is, intentionally or not, you /do/ limit your audience.
 >> Can someone who can only read Armenian make use of your websites?
 >> How about a five year old?

 > The onus is not on me to do so.  It is on *them* to provide the
 > resources needed to make use of what I offer.  Stop trying to burden
 > me with the cost of 8 billion different choices.

	That wasn't anywhere near my intent.  But either way, do you
	seriously suggest that one's native language is a matter of
	choice?  Or being a five year old?

	Do I get it right that it's your point here that it's morally
	wrong to burden web authors with making their webpages usable
	without Javascript, yet it's entirely right and reasonable to
	expect web users to just shut up and eat up whichever web
	technology is considered the most modern at any given time?

	If you don't want to give me your data, that's your choice.
	But don't expect me to just run your webapp instead, because
	more likely than not, /my/ choice will be /not/ to.

 >> (Can /you/ read http://sw.wikipedia.org/ ?  If so, please kindly
 >> share pointers to your reference materials, as I'd like to be
 >> part of their target audience, too.)

 > Pointer: learn the language.  Pointer: use language translation
 > software.  Pointer: *pay* someone who has done either to do it for
 > you.  Pointer: don't be an asshole by saying/implying that *they*
 > are doing something that wrongly limits you.

	Wasn't my intent, either.  Now, however, I have every reason
	to say that /you/ wrongly misunderstood me, as well as offered
	an advice you haven't tried to follow yourself.  Also wrongly.

Back to comp.infosystems.www.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

non-mainstream web (browsers) Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-08-09 14:05 +0000
  Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-09 19:53 +0000
    Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-08-10 08:15 +0000
      Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-11 00:47 +0000
        Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-08-15 15:55 +0000
      Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-11 23:00 +0000
        Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-13 10:21 +1000
          Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-13 19:18 +0000
        [OT] appreciating things old and old-fashioned Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-08-14 12:55 +0000
          Re: [OT] appreciating things old and old-fashioned Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-15 16:42 +0000
            Re: [OT] appreciating things old and old-fashioned Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-08-15 21:25 +0000
              Re: [OT] appreciating things old and old-fashioned Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-17 02:07 +0000
                Re: [OT] appreciating things old and old-fashioned Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-08-17 22:47 +0000
                Re: [OT] appreciating things old and old-fashioned Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-19 21:02 +0000
                Re: [OT] appreciating things old and old-fashioned Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-08-22 18:39 +0000
                I complain! Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-08-17 22:55 +0000
        non-mainstream web Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-08-15 15:05 +0000
          Re: non-mainstream web Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-16 21:42 +0000
            Re: non-mainstream web Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 07:12 +0000
            (non-)mainstream web and its costs Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-09-13 19:00 +0000
            Re: non-mainstream web Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-09-13 19:17 +0000
        non-mainstream web browsers Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-08-15 15:55 +0000
          Re: non-mainstream web browsers Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-16 22:46 +0000
            Re: non-mainstream web browsers Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-09-13 19:13 +0000
              Re: non-mainstream web browsers Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-13 23:02 +0000
    Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 08:53 -0700
      Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-11 21:51 +0000
        Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 14:57 -0700
          Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-13 18:43 +0000
            Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 12:14 -0700
              Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2025-08-13 12:48 -0700
              Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-15 15:14 +0000
                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 09:03 -0700
                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-16 23:36 +0000
                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 07:09 +0000
                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-18 10:45 -0700
                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-18 23:25 +0000
                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-19 08:14 -0700
                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-19 21:58 +0000
                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-20 00:39 +0000
                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-25 03:24 +0000
                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) "B. Pym" <Nobody447095@here-nor-there.org> - 2025-08-24 14:42 +0000
                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-08-24 19:41 +0200

csiph-web