Some thoughts about the small web

tl;dr: It is perfectly OK that people sometimes have conflicting objectives when pursuing alternative tech

In response to pandion's articles:

Some thoughts about the small web

Some thoughts about indyweb

which ask the following question:

> But what is the small web?

> I mean is there a definition that we have come to?

I'd say that we look at the wider situation: there are lots of overlapping and conflicting terms used to denote the intersecting networks and systems that people are building:

small web

small net (often, "smolnet")

indy web

permacomputing

retrocomputing

Mostly, these are not the same thing, but overlap. Similarly, people have sometimes overlapping, sometimes conflicting goals:

individual agency and control

privacy

decentralisation

support for lean or minimalist or simplified computing technologies

support for open source, open protocols, etc

opposition to advertising

opposition to the mainstream

opposition to monopolies or the extent of intellectual property

opposition to Big Tech

opposition to capitalism (or, indeed, some kind of socialism)

opposition to planned obsolescence

Sometimes these goals are mutually reinforcing, but sometimes they conflict with each other. Which is fine. But it can cause misunderstandings - for instance, Gemini looks good for low-powered and older hardware, because it has lower resource requirements. But not low enough to be run on a ZX80 with no SSL support, and accordingly, Gemini has been criticised by supporters of retrocomputing. But Gemini was designed with different trade-offs in mind.

None of these desirable goals is sacred, so it's appropriate to accept trade-offs between them. We just need to recognise that trade-offs are what we're doing.