[kossTKR]

I'm beginning to seriously think we need a new internet, another protocol, other browsers just to break up the insane monopolies that has been formed, because the way things are going soon all discourse will be censored, and competitors will be blocked soon.

We need something that's good for small and medium businesses again, local news and get an actual marketplace going - you know what the internet actually promised.

Anyone working on something like this?

[sharperguy]

The community around NOSTR are basically building a kind of semantic web, where users identities are verified via their public key, data is routed through content agnostic relays, and trustworthiness is verified by peer recommendation.

They are currently experimenting with replicating many types of services which are currently websites as protocols with data types, with the goal being that all of these services can share available data with eachother openly.

It's definitely more of a "bazaar" model over a "catherdral" model, with many open questions and it's also tough to get a good overview of what is really going on there. But at least it's an attempt.

[armchairhacker]

We have a “new internet”. We have the indie web, VPNs, websites not behind Cloudflare, other browsers. You won’t have a large audience, but a new protocol won't fix that.

Also, plenty of small and medium businesses are doing fine on the internet. You only hear about ones with problems like this. And if these problems become more frequent and public, Google will put more effort into fixing them.

I think the most practical thing we can do is support people and companies who fall through the cracks, by giving them information to understand their situation and recover, and by promoting them.

[AtlasBarfed]

"Google will put more effort into fixing them"

Why would they do that? Do they lose money from these people? Why would they care? they're a monopoly they don't need to care

[andrepd]

Stop trying to look for technological answers to political problems. We already have a way to avoid excessive accumulation of power by private entities, it's called "anti-trust laws" (heck, "laws" in general).

Any new protocol not only has to overcome the huge incumbent that is the web, it has to do so grassroots against the power of global capital (trillions of dollars of it). Of course, it also has to work in the first place and not be captured and centralised like another certain open and decentralised protocol has (i.e., the Web).

Is that easier than the states doing their jobs and writing a couple pages of text?

[vladms]

States are made of people both at decision and at street level. Many anti-trust laws were made when the decision people that were not very tied with the actual interests - nowadays this seem to change. At no point I think people at street level ever understood the actual implications.

A structural solution is to educate and lift the whole population to better understand the implications of their choices.

A tactic solution is to try to limit the collusion of decision people and private entities, but this does not seem to go extremely well.

An "evolutionary" solution (that just happens) used to be to have a war - that would push a lot of people to look for efficiency rather than for some interests. But this is made more complex by nukes.

[shadowgovt]

I don't really see how anti-trust would address something like Google Chrome's safe browsing infrastructure.

The problem is that the divide of alignment of interests there is between new, small companies and users. New companies want to put up a website without tripping over one of the thousand unwritten rules of "How to not look like a phishing site or malware depot" (many of which are unwritten because protecting users and exploiting users is a cat-and-mouse game)... And users don't want to get owned.

Shard Chrome off from Google and it still has incentives to protect users at the cost of new companies' ease of joining the global network as a peer citizen. It may have less signal as a result of a curtailed visibility on the state of millions of pages, but the consequence of that is that it would offer worse safe browsing protection and more users would get owned as a result.

Perhaps the real issue is that (not unlike email) joining the web as a peer citizen has just plain gotten harder in the era of bad actors exploiting the infrastructure to cause harm to people.

Like... You know what never has these problems? My blog. It's a static-site-generated collection of plain HTML that updates once in a blue moon via scp. I'm not worried about Google's safe browsing infrastructure, because I never look like a malware site. And if I did trip over one of the unwritten rules (or if attackers figured out how to weaponize something personal-blog-shaped)? The needs of the many justify Chrome warning people before going to my now-shady site.

[pjc50]

It's very, very hard to overcome the gravitational forces which encourage centralization, and doing so requires rooting the different communities that you want to exist in their own different communities of people. It's a political governance problem, not a technical one.

[shadowgovt]

This is the key idea.

Companies have economy of scale (Google, for instance, is running dozens to hundreds of web apps off of one well-maintained fabric) and the ability to force consolidation of labor behind a few ideas by controlling salaries so that the technically hard, detailed, or boring problems actually get solved. Open source volunteer projects rarely have either of those benefits.

In theory, you could compete with Google via

- Well-defined protocols

- That a handful of projects implement (because if it's too many, you split the available talent pool and end up with e.g. seven mediocre photo storage apps that are thin wrappers around a folder instead of one Google Photos with AI image search capability).

- Which solve very technically hard, detailed, or boring technical problems (AI image search is an actual game-changer feature; the difference between "Where is that one photo I took of my dog? I think it was Christmas. Which Christmas, hell I don't know" and "Show me every photo of my dog, no not that dog, the other dog").

I'd even risk putting up bullet point four: "And be willing to provide solutions for problems other people don't want solved without those other people working to torpedo your volunteer project" (there are lots of folks who think AI image detection is de-facto evil and nobody should be working on it, and any open source photo app they can control the fate of will fall short of Google's offering for end-users).

[sureglymop]

You make it seem like the problem is of technical nature (instead of regulatory or other). Would you mind explaining why?

Technical alternatives already exist, see for example GNUnet.

[squarefoot]

Problem is that as soon as some technology takes traction, it catches the attention of businesses, and there is where the slow but steady enshittification process begins. Not that business necessarily equals enshittification, but in a world dominated by capitalism without borders soon or later someone will break some unwritten rules and others will have to follow to remain competitive, until that new technology will become a new web, and we'll be back to square one. To me the problem isn't technical, as isn't its solution.

[fsflover]

How about the Invisible Internet Project, https://geti2p.net?

[chuckadams]

IPFS has been doing some great work around decentralization that actually scales (Netflix uses it internally to speed up container delivery), but a) it's only good for static content, b) things still need friendly URLs, and c) once it becomes the mainstream, bad actors will find a way to ruin it anyway.

These apply to a lot of other decentralized systems too.

[immibis]

In no way does IPFS "actually scale" while it takes two minutes (120 seconds) to find an object.

[Timwi]

It won't get anywhere unless it addresses the issue of spam, scammers, phishing etc. The whole purpose of Google Safe Browsing is to make life harder for scammers.

[fsflover]

How does the Internet addresses that?

[kossTKR]

True, but google already censors their search results to push certain imperial agendas so i'm not trusting them in the long run.

[conartist6]

I'm not sure, but it's on my mind.

I own what I think are the key protocols for the future of browsers and the web, and nobody knows it yet. I'm not committed to forking the web by any means, but I do think I have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to remake the system if I were determined to and knew how to remake it into something better.

If you want to talk more, reach out!

[daoboy]

Intriguing comment, but your username does not inspire confidence.

[account42]

This is not a technical problem. You will not solve it with purely technical solutions.

[wartywhoa23]

I'm afraid this can't be built on the current net topology which is owned by the Stupid Money Govporation and inherently allows for roadblocks in the flow of information. Only a mesh could solve that.

But the Stupid Money Govporation must be dethroned first, and I honestly don't see how that could happen without the help of an ELE like a good asteroid impact.

[simultsop]

It will take the same or less amount of time, to get where we are with current Web.

What we have is the best sim env to see how stuff shape up. So fixing it should be the aim, avoiding will get us on similar spirals. We'll just go on circles.

[botverse]

Having a decade of fresh air is also a good incentive regardless of how it ends