of time to think when re

Found at: zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/~visiblink/phlog/20190617

of time to think when you're getting 
concrete ready for painting.

So I've been thinking about Gopher 2.0 
/ HTML 0.5. If I understand correctly, 
the consensus among the proponents of 
the liminal protocol seems to be that 
the it would have lesser capabilities 
than the web, but more than gopher. I 
think it's reasonable to state that 
this seems to be a universal 

other new features, and improved 

the web, designed to prevent bad 
filtering/shaping (just to name a 

alternative impacts how you react (and 

At first, because of the nature of 
the proposals to be focussed on the 
creation of a kind of Gopher++ 
(Gopher+ is already taken, so I'm 
ad-libbing here). I hate that idea 
because I like Gopher (it's lovely to 
nhabit an online world without links
and images), and because the idea of 
Gopher++ holds out the possibility of 

However, when I think about the 
From that perspective, it's a 
Yet if viewed as web-, we do have to 
the web already. That's true. The 
community -- constrain the overall 
mpact of the practices we don't want
mposed on us on the web.

As users, we can block the 
anti-features of the web, and many of 
us do. But when the majority around us 
are exposed to those anti-features, 
they pattern the collective mentality 
and the social interactions that 
visiting reddit with images turned 
off. Yet everyone else is exposed to 
and considering those images. 
Likewise, I can peruse the web with a 
avoiding, including my own experience 
of it.

A new protocol -- if it is to be 
on a shared vision of a good online 
environment rather than technical 

One of the real problems with the web 
s that its capabilities are being
(and have long been) reshaped by 
non-standards-based 'features' are 
added into browsers as unique 
additions to html, and then frequently 
adopted into the html standard 
afterwards. Some of you may remember 
the "Best viewed in Netscape" and 
"Best viewed in IE" labels on sites in 
the 90s/00s. If not, you surely notice 
the "works best with Chrome" messages 

Could Web- and it's RFC remain in the 
and I think it would be an interesting 
exercise to design the standards. 
Agreeing on limits, however, would not 
be easy. Many of the abused features 
of the web undoubtedly started out as 
useful enhancements.

cookie thinking that it would be a 
each visitor -- without considering 
that the stored information could be 
exploited in nefarious ways. Mind you, 
cookies. I could be completely wrong 
about their origins. But it's 
conceivable that they might have been 
created to serve a useful, 
non-exploitative purpose.

that there would be great debates 
between the enhancers and privacy 
advocates in defining the protocol, 
but the key thing would be to have the 
community, with it's purpose being 

That being said, I have a 
ntended to prevent private entities
or random individuals from introducing 
non-standards-based feature-creep:

non-protocol features. 

a technical basis, but I think it 
about how standards become abused and