Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #235229

Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?

From	Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org>
Newsgroups	alt.folklore.computers
Subject	Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?
Date	2026-08-05 12:47 -0300
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<8733ws1scw.fsf@safunu.org> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <1143d75$1r9pk$1@dont-email.me> <1143mb1$1uena$1@xy0.dont-email.me> <1145g4m$2gdqg$1@dont-email.me> <87ldatae7w.fsf@safunu.org> <114r6lc$1l39u$4@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> writes:

> On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 14:38:11 -0300, Anton Antimo wrote:
>
>> Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> writes:
>
>>> [...]
>
>>> There is also something to say about just the simplicity. I have run a
>>> lemmy instance and still find it frustrating that you have to use web
>>> browsers to utilize the platform. KISS really applies here in that we
>>> already have protocol standards for discussions and minimal clients
>>> with minimal network connectivity required.
>>>
>>> Multimedia is rather over-emphasized on popular disccussion platforms
>>> and is better served on their own dedicated platforms for their binary
>>> types.
>>>
>>> As a side note, I would prefer its own protocol for the different
>>> types of media to be consumed (as with NNTP for mainly textual
>>> discussion) however, it's a far fetched and not well thought out
>>> idea of mine that I wouldn't expect to see ever happening in the
>>> wild at any great scale.
>> 
>> Can you elaborate on your idea?  It seems you're saying that instead of
>> using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
>> protocol?  If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
>> good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia
>> protocol into a good user interface.  When I think of good user
>> interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
>> already have.
>> 
>> Why is that so?  I believe computers are not too different from what
>> they were in the 70s.  We're still using the same software pretty much.
>> (Not saying everything is perfect.)
>
> I mean, its more than possible. We don't really have to dwell on how that 
> implementation would actually occur since this is just hypothetical but we 
> for sure have more than enough examples of very good interfaces built 
> around a single protocol or tool. The first one that comes to mind is git. 
> They have things that visualize the git history over time in a really cool 
> way like gource. They also have more typical graphical interfaces for git, 
> vim integration, shell integration, web integration, emacs integration and 
> plain old command line.
>
> The question of tying all the pieces together into a nice interface is up 
> to the application developers.
>
> What I really am trying to get across above however is that the 
> fundamental separation between data provenance, data presentation and data 
> communication should be fully present. I think the best way to illistrate 
> this is via an example.
>
> Current Day:
>
> You have a forum site that on the main landing page you have ads posted, 
> videos auto playing and *linked* images automatically being loaded, 
> infinite scrolling and click tracking. All of this being implemented on 
> top of an HTTP/TCP stack. 
>
> You point your web browser at it and you either get all of the features or 
> none of them. The site determines what your computer does and what it 
> doesn't
>
> This is a problem for many reasons that I will get into later.
>
> My Theoretical Ideal:
>
> You have a forum site or video sharing site or a government web page. When 
> connecting you are provided with a basic HTML/HTTP style page that can be 
> made to look pretty by your browser. No autoplaying anything, no 
> autoloaded images, no javascript. You get just what you asked for and no 
> more. If you just wanted the text of the web page then you already have it 
> by accessing the site. You want to watch a video or a live stream? Follow 
> this rtmp:// or "video://" link of which you can either download in full 
> or live stream the video. You want to look at a photo gallery? Here is a 
> list of images that you can set in your client to either fully fetch and 
> display automatically via the photo:// links or let you manually select 
> them as you please.
>
> Here I am assuming the video:// would be a static file on the webserver 
> and that the "video" protocol has the ability to seek and livestream 
> (protocol features) rather than just file transfer (despite modern 
> browsers being capable of client side streaming of static mp4s served as 
> files from HTTP servers). 
>
> My Point:
>
> Regardless, this just seems like an idea that is a gopher or gemini 
> protocol clone and derived from that ethos. And in a way, it is. But the 
> idea of having separate protocols for the different "types" of data that 
> you may wish to host brings the following benefits:
>
> 1. You have less protocol overhead as the transfer protocol is specialized 
> for that type of media, instead of using a protocol layered on top of the 
> network that involves special parsing and additional considerations by 
> each layer. Example being HLS and binary transfer in HTTP
>
> 2. You have an easier time as a software client user and as a software 
> client developer defining controls for the type of content you wish to 
> view and whether you want it to be manually interacted with or 
> automatically fetched.
>
> 2b. This directly helps with the issues of dealing with things like JS    
> where essentially you are running other people's served code, which can 
> cause you to, lets say, auto play videos and auto fetch images despite you 
> having those settings set to false. Avoiding so called jailbreaks
>
> 4. It encourages a full applicatio suite. Much like the UNIX philosophy of 
> one thing done well, you can have a separation of tools and separation of 
> concerns for each developer.
>
> 3. It provides for simpler specifications due to limited scope. One HUGE 
> problem with HTML and HTTP is that their specifications are HUGE and 
> forever changing. For example, HTML (SGML derived) is permissible to have 
> non-well-formed documents. i.e. unclosed tags such as '<p>' '<br>' and 
> many more. While in that same exact specification they have XHTML (XML 
> Derived, now simply called HTML as they are no longer delineated in the 
> spec) which *IS* well formed. HTTP also has for a while had the capability 
> to do live streaming, overtaking traditional streaming control protocols 
> such as rtsp, rtmp and rts (I know that some of these are hypertext 
> oriented protocols, they are built for a specific purpose none-the-less). 
> There are some good reasons for HLS vs rtsp, rtmp, etc... Originating from 
> the way it plays nicely with CDNs (HLS is file based streaming in 
> typically 0.5-2 second chunks) but I honestly have to think that similar 
> benefits could be derived from the same level of trickery pulled to make 
> HLS happen in just making a CDN friendly streaming protocol. Completely 
> removing the HTTP stack and wackiness that way. 
>
> 3a. This also, I think, would make writing specifications that could be 
> used universally much easier, rather than a lazy de facto standard that 
> emerges from organizations developing for use cases individually and then 
> sharing that with (or copying from) other orgs. Or even worse, only for a 
> single platform/application, which leads every website to be a PWA that 
> requires JS.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Ultimately, I would want the media specific protocols for to simplfy and 
> make the internet much more intentional and privacy respecting in nature. 
> Screw algorithms, screw proprietary content delivery stacks and stop 
> expecting me to run other people's shady code to view what could be 
> summerized in a notepad.exe document (my fave cookie recipe). 
>
> I think that we have enough going over HTTP. And for business/life 
> critical tasks such as banking, there are very much correct ways to handle 
> their communications that SHOULD be standardized in their own protocols 
> using encryption and the like. Not left up to some web dev to figure out 
> during their 8hr shift only for it to probably be implemented wrong. And 
> if implemented correctly, only for that one bank.
>
> Removing the oppourtunity for error and distributing the control of media 
> consumption and program execution is paramount to freedom of discussion 
> and internet security. As a side note, the fact that I can get served zero 
> cliekc malware through AD networks is just insane to me, I can't even 
> support my favorite creators without worrying about my security! (This 
> issue could be averted completely with server side AD code, but easily 
> blocked :) )
>
>
> Post Script.
>
> As another side note. I think that one thing the entirety of the global 
> network really really forgets is that separation of concerns does not 
> simply stop at the hardware/infrastructure level. Neither does the UNIX 
> philosophy stop where it seems to end. Instead, separation of concerns, 
> trust and function are at the core values of the whole computing machine 
> and it networking. Simply those platforms that most use don't take this 
> approach. Its the minimal viable product, the path of least resistence and 
> highest profit. Feature creep over expert execution. It just hurts my soul
>
> Post Post Script.
>
> I honestly think that ultimately what I have proposed would do a lot of 
> good for the main use case that people use the internet for now, 
> communication/entertainment (this has been kinda blurred in recent 
> decades) and would prevent a lot of vendor/application lock in that we 
> have seen with web browsers and word processors. It would just rely on 
> people actually wanting to retain that type of computing environment once 
> they realize what they have and could lose. 

Thanks for the through presentation.  Your ideas are what makes sense to
me; it is the lack of such properties in the current web and web
browsing that makes me think they will not survive down the road.  In
the end, it is really the best design that survives.  (Yes, Common Lisp
is still an island, but the story is not over yet.  Things don't evolve
as fast as the expert would like to see.)

Not to criticize your ideas, but just to add the comment that I still
can't see a new-revolutionary idea.  The current difficulty that we face
at the current web seems to be how to move it from where it is to this
doug-mcilroy-do-one-thing-and-do-it-well design.  The obvious thing /to
me/ is the need for a new type of web browser.  Things hardly ever are
born more powerful than the current in-use tool, but it has to be cool
enough to encourage people to use it.  Without a New Browser (whatever
it would be), users will not take it on and so web developers will not
care about it.  I was happy to see the birth of the Gemini protocol, but
it's unclear it is it.

One my current hopes is the so-called ai-slop.  Perhaps it will destroy
the web so badly that it will bury the web browser, allowing new ideas
to emerge.

I feel we may be at an exciting moment.  In the beginning, the
excitement was the void, the unknown that was ahead of the hacker's
work.  Now the void may be here again, but in the form of nonsense.

Thread

Remember when discussions were worth reading? Tom Mix <tommix@mixmin.net> - 2026-07-25 17:19 +0000
  Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-25 15:06 -0300
  Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-25 23:26 +0100
    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> - 2026-07-26 01:29 +0100
      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-25 22:43 -0300
        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> - 2026-07-26 11:30 +0100
          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2026-08-06 14:02 -0400
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-06 20:55 +0000
        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 10:46 +0800
          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-10 09:25 -0300
    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Ted W." <usenet@xy0.org> - 2026-07-26 01:02 +0000
      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Caffeine Canidae <samuel.common@hotmail.com> - 2026-07-26 16:43 +0100
      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-07-26 17:28 +0000
        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-29 14:38 -0300
          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-29 18:59 +0000
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-29 16:13 -0300
              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> - 2026-07-30 10:17 -0400
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-30 12:41 -0300
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> - 2026-07-30 16:38 -0400
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 21:45 +0000
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 11:05 +0800
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-30 20:53 +0000
                CorelDRAW! on S.C.O. Unix (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 11:12 +0800
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:27 -0400
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> - 2026-08-01 08:45 -0400
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 21:50 +0000
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-3f9-this> - 2026-08-01 07:30 -0700
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-03 21:59 -0300
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-04 08:29 -0700
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 02:54 +0000
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-08-05 10:31 -0400
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-05 18:14 -0300
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-05 09:36 +0000
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-05 08:36 -0700
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-05 20:16 +0000
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 21:00 +0000
                Electronic mail deliverability (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-06 09:27 +0100
                Re: Electronic mail deliverability (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-06 09:37 +0000
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-05 18:12 -0300
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-06 03:27 +0000
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-08-07 21:23 +0000
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-5ex-this> - 2026-08-08 08:06 -0700
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-08 23:41 +0000
                "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading? danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2026-08-09 00:03 +0000
                Re: "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-09 02:22 +0000
                Re: "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading? danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2026-08-09 02:31 +0000
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-10 11:04 -0300
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Ted W." <usenet@xy0.org> - 2026-08-08 17:34 +0000
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-10 00:52 +0100
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-10 11:11 -0300
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 10:58 +0800
          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-07-31 12:45 +0100
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:16 -0400
              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-07-31 17:25 +0000
              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 21:24 +0000
          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 23:02 +0000
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-05 12:47 -0300
              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 21:48 +0000
        The Weave (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 10:52 +0800
          Re: The Weave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-09 09:29 +0100
          Re: The Weave ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-08-09 09:39 +0000
            Re: The Weave Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 07:03 -0700
              Re: The Weave Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 23:12 +0800
              Re: The Weave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-09 16:28 +0100
                Interface connectors (Re: The Weave) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 13:13 -0700
                Re: Interface connectors (Re: The Weave) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-08-09 22:02 +0000
                Re: The Weave drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2026-08-09 21:04 +0000
                IBM Channel Interface (Re: The Weave) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 15:29 -0700
            Re: The Weave Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-09 20:29 +0000
              MAP - Manufacturing Automation Protocol (Re: The Weave) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 15:39 -0700
                Re: MAP - Manufacturing Automation Protocol (Re: The Weave) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-09 23:20 +0000
              Re: The Weave "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-08-10 09:27 +0100
            Re: The Weave Thomas Prufer <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid> - 2026-08-10 09:02 +0200
      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-07-28 18:01 +0000
      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-29 14:33 -0300
  Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-08-07 16:00 -1000

csiph-web