Strange.website(strange.website) |
Strange.website(strange.website) |
I've added quite a few Easter eggs and a few old school games. Let me know what you think?
Blue dots are locations of previous visitors.. it all works well on desktop, the games need a bit more love to work well on mobile.
On the Internet: any movie I want to watch; any song I want to listen to; an endless parade of games to play via Steam et al.; about a zillion games I can play online with friends; numerous app store options, and an entire other world of smartphone games I can play alone or with friends; inexpensive LLMs I can do almost anything I want to with, wherever my imagination takes me; porn, a lot of porn; infinite social media; infinite videos on youtube; any skill I want to learn, there is - what might as well be - unlimited material on how to do it; any book I want to read; communications, email, instant messaging, tele-whatever; just about any kind of get-x-done software I could ask for, and if it doesn't exist an LLM will create it for me tonight; shopping, whatever you want to buy, you can shop for it, research it, look at it; want to start an LLC? Internet. Want to file a trademark? Internet. Want a passport? Internet. Book a flight/hotel/B&B/car rental? Internet. Plot a holiday? Internet. Have a hobby? Communities on one platform or another. And on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.
did you really not understand what the author meant by “internet” in the colloquial sense or are you being needlessly pedantic?
It's a great book :)
> this site is built with Eleventy and Sass, and uses ~no JavaScript~ a very small amount of JavaScript for the House of Leaves post.
So, HoL confirmed.
I am especially befuddled by all the comments stating "This is how the web used to be!"; no it wasn't, and I can only imagine those who think so collate their view of web history purely through what others say on Mastodon and Twitter (who in turn probably constructed their view of the time from the twelfth or so chinese whisper down the line of various blogs and manifestos).
Meaning: also no images.
"my cathedral-seeing eyes finally came in the mail, really excited to try these puppies out. oh holy shit"
/s, if it wasn't obvious...
A man stumbles upon the idea of a thing that itself is borne off the account of someone else that never actually came to pass. Madness ensues. And madness perhaps precedes the event. ‘Weird and eerie’.
Some of the presentation (such as the inverted / mirrored square) is pure art. In an admirable sense: art.
While I get the commentary — that bit reminded me of House of Leaves which has been criticized for the same thing — there’s a real human behind this, who obviously cares deeply about the issues they’re communicating about (and has the skill to do so quite incredibly.) Sometimes I wonder, in the ease of critique, what it’s like for the anonymous person on the other end, and I don’t feel good here. I feel like your comment doesn’t quite account for the humanity of someone else, nor of someone doing something with passion.
Here's a better look at how the "anonymous person on the other end" sees things [1]:
> “i’m always polite to chat gpt so it remembers me later ” you are going to die from water-poison-related typhoid in the Great American Megadesert after a particularly nasty heat surge evaporates the rest of the drinkable rations. you will be buried in the sand.
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/strange.website/post/3m33mnmcyys2t
I'd agree if the site covered some history, shared recipes, or even just ranted about the author's favorite movies. But this guy is just trash-talking the entire internet.
"the website has changed. it twists facts to fiction, reality to rubbish, gold into dirt." ... and so on.
If you're going to be cruel, you might get some cruel feedback.
There’s no real value here. No new info, no original content. Just clunky web design and rants about 'social media bad.'
That’s not how the web actually was. Everyone used to bring something to the table, instead of just talking in circles about the table itself.
Try search something on https://wiby.me for example and then tell me if all you get are people writing about the web.
It is also true that Facebook and its ilk did destroy huge swaths of the online community. Example: I'm a automotive tinkerer, and online forums used to be a rich source of information, community, crazy builds...people actually creating stuff for the sake of creating. All that is gone now and the purity of an open space to put creative pursuits has been infiltrated with perverse engagement incentives, ads, algorithmic curation and the like.
I get what you're saying, but it doesn't mean that OP is wrong even if you find it exhausting.
When I was a kid in the 80s there were fake 1950s diners everywhere, with jukeboxes and malt machines, bubble gum music and greasy hamburgers. They were a cheap nostalgic simulacrum of something not originally all that special. That was because there were still a lot of people alive who were teenagers in the 1950s and wanted to show their kids or grandkids something kinda-like the world they grew up in. It drifted further and further from reality along with the people who inhabited that world, who grew old and died. Now we just have faux 50s diners and a lot of old movies to look at.
Even if we completely deleted the Internet and started from scratch, or any other technology for that matter, enterprising people will want to use the technology to deliver some sort of value to society in return for goods and services. This is both a good thing for the people in question, as they can be paid for something they love doing, addresses previously thought of use cases (such as online shopping or video streaming, in the case of the Internet) that people would be willing to pay for, and leads to commercial exchanges with many positive downstream effects (internet providers laying infrastructure, companies investing in software, and associated employment for many people).
Certainly, I owe all of my jobs and many of the friendships that I continue beyond their meatspace boundaries, precisely because the Internet and commercial services on top of it that enabled it to happen.
Without this aspect, the Internet would likely be left in a niche, which makes it far less useful to most. This is the primary reason why projects like Gemini, etc. will not have much success, because it is intentionally designed to be not useful to most people; and guess what? You can always make plain HTML/CSS websites and set up a Matrix server for your buddies to talk to; you don't need a new protocol and sing praises about the indieweb to make this happen.
So I don't think they were being needlessly pedantic, nor do I think they didn't understand what the parent meant by internet in the colloquial.
Lots of different ways one could take this: maybe whom they were responding to is just being lazy, that the good parts of the internet are there for them to explore, but they are beholden to their web browser and their favorite loathed platforms that 'make the internet suck'.
Or maybe whom they were responding to really has gone the rounds and really has considered all the options and bemoans how difficult the non-web internet services are to use, and how inelegant they can be at times and what a pain they are to maintain if it isn't your full time job.
There can be so many ways to take written material on the internet; more often even pedantic comments at least let us ensure we aren't simply reaffirming our own biases.
One system built on the Internet is the World Wide Web, which is just webpages served with the http/https protocol.
Other protocols that route over the Internet include email, ssh, Tor, torrents, apps, etc.
The structure allows for great things. People suck. Hell is other people and all that.
The internet is the scaffolding/structure, the Web is what people are doing in a browser (i.e., over HTTP) in it.
Then there's also the stuff people do on the internet without a browser/HTTP. Nobody opens an IMAP/SSH/BitTorrent/IRC client or whatever and thinks of that as surfing the Web, because those aren't browsers nor are they primarily speaking HTTP.
We’ve spoken of the Net, which can be defined as the totality of all information and communication transfer. Some of these transfers are privileged and limited to various elites, which gives the Net a hierarchic aspect. Other transactions are open to all — so the Net has a horizontal or non-hierarchic aspect as well. Military and Intelligence data are restricted, as are banking and currency information and the like. But for the most part the telephone, the postal system, public data banks, etc. are accessible to everyone and anyone. Thus within the Net there has begun to emerge a shadowy sort of counter-Net, which we will call the Web (as if the Net were a fishing-net and the Web were spider-webs woven through the interstices and broken sections of the Net). Generally we’ll use the term Web to refer to the alternate horizontal open structure of info-exchange, the non-hierarchic network, and reserve the term counter-Net to indicate clandestine illegal and rebellious use of the Web, including actual data-piracy and other forms of leeching off the Net itself. Net, Web, and counter-Net are all parts of the same whole pattern-complex — they blur into each other at innumerable points. The terms are not meant to define areas but to suggest tendencies.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/hakim-bey-t-a-z-the-...
I spent a couple of hours on wiby.me browsing sites at random and it was amazing. Thank you for that.
However, 95% of the sites there haven't been updated in 15+ years. In fact, none of the 20+ sites I found through the 'surprise me' feature had any updates since the late 2000s (though I’m sure some out there have).
It gives me the impression that this 'let's get the web back' movement is mostly nostalgia. Culture happens where it happens, not where it should happen. Today, that place is unfortunately a walled garden controlled by corporations. I hope that changes, but judging by these websites, that change isn't happening yet.
So I think the overall situation is a bit more nuanced than that. I am someone who's very much in the "let's bring the old-school web back" camp but I mean that in a conceptual sense. I strongly believe that the web would be, overall, a much better place if people were all tending to their own websites, interacting with each other via email or forums. It's a slower, more deliberate way to exist in this digital space.
But all that doesn't imply we also need to ditch modern tech and go back making sites with FrontPage and table layouts. And it also doesn't mean we can't have "modern looking" websites. The two things can coexist.
At the same time, there are people who like the 90s web aesthetics, but they also spend their time posting shit on Instagram. That's just nostalgia and personally I don't care about that part.
I do know for a fact that it's possible to get the good parts of the old web back. I know it because I experience it daily. I have a blog that's powered by a modern CMS. Yet it has no JS, no tracking, no fancy features. People can get my content via RSS (and a lot of people do), they can leave a message in my guestbook, they can poke around my blogroll and they can click around and be redirected to other blogs run by people who, like me, believe a better web is possible. I also get emailed daily by people who simply want to connect in a way that feels more authentic.
That's the part of the old school web I want back. But it's also a part that never went entirely away.
> Culture happens where it happens, not where it should happen. Today, that place is unfortunately a walled garden controlled by corporations.
You're right which is why I genuinely believe that in the context of the web, not having a presence on social media and having a personal site instead is today's counterculture. And we need more people to embrace that.
You just explained why those sites are amazing. The pressure to update sites is what starts the slow descent into personal op-ed oblivion. These are sites, not blogs. The bloggification of the web is what made sites suck.
Ray's a great example, he even has a lovely page about webrings: https://brisray.com/utils/webrings.htm
Was very happy to have him as a guest on my series if you want to know more about the story of his site: https://manuelmoreale.com/interview/ray-thomas
That said, I don't entirely agree with the point of the article you linked.
What made the web suck was money imo. If the incentive is to keep posting to get views and those views are translated into money, then yeah, there's no incentive to keep things static. But on today's web, blogs aren't the only option. Plenty of people prefer to have digital gardens, which I think are a lot more close to old school sites.
[0] https://wildwild.directory [1] https://cloudhiker.net [2] https://theuselessweb.com