{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "canonicalUrl": "https://www.jacky.wtf//essays/2024/deinvest-open-web",
  "path": "/essays/2024/deinvest-open-web",
  "publishedAt": "2024-09-20T03:35:00.000Z",
  "site": "at://did:plc:e2ctbutx6kya6si4if5ngjmm/site.standard.publication/3mniussyp2d2g",
  "tags": "essay",
  "textContent": "I don't shy from the fact that I have strong feelings that guide my outlook. I make sure to not\nsolely make those feelings my only facet of guidance and look for things that both defend and\ncounter the logics I want to embody. In relation to the open Web, I'm fighting something that I\ndidn't expect to be such a concrete emotion: disappointment. A post came across my timeline that\nlinked [to a post][2] of the same author that made me question my objectives in a few different spaces,\nmost notably the loosely organized IndieWeb community. It reminded me that, especially as someone\nwho reads and writes in multiple languages, that words _mean_ things; even beyond the assumptions or\nagreed upon stances of a self-selecting community. Things like this have influenced a lot of my\ndecisions, like my leaving of the SWICG due to the very eager nature of allowing representatives of\ncompanies that have been explicitly damaging to the health of the open social Web. I don't believe\nin reaching across the table with folks who are aid to work on systems of harm. Some folks are\ncomfortable around these kinds of folks — my morality isn't domestic nor is it something\nthat's a toggle.\n\nThis leads me to my point. I got more interested in the open social Web due to a clear understanding\nof the role that corporate hegemony has on sharing public opinion on events and the welfare of people.\nThe events I've been directly involved in New York and in California contributed to this perspective\nheavily. I did also see the great benefits around returning a modicum of autonomy back to the\npeople who use, share and make technology on the regular. These things led me to try to write more\non my own domain. However, the ability to connect with people in the same way that we've been (slowly)\ndomesticated to deem as social on the Internet through the silos has been more valuable to me than\nleaning into the idea of [POSSE][3] — until one went through the Herculean effort to craft it\nthemselves, figure out how to make one of the options promoted by the Wiki or other folks work for\nthem or - on top of the cost of a domain name - pay someone else to do it all for you. This isn't an\nissue for those who have the means and don't have the tight assumptions of online connectivity that\nfolks who came into use in their youth post-Obama (2008). However, for the folks who are the ones\nwho end up mattering to my communities the most - these are all _trinkets_ of the behavior of a\nsubset of a subset of the Internet culture that I didn't realize (at first glance). Despite that,\nthe underpinnings of what was advertised on the Wiki still resonated as something I thought I could\nbring back to the spaces I occupy and have more folks understand the value of. Ironically, it wasn't\nmy use of Linux, my knowledge of Perl or things I've done before that brandished me a neck beard\ntitle in a circle I used to run in - it was talking about websites in this manner.\n\nAmy Hoy [wrote a piece][4] that I revisit often because I think it answers what explains this behavior. I\nshould note (not to age anyone but to show the speed of the shift) that I was born when she\nmentioned her first entry to the Web. My first time getting online was via dial up by way of AOL\n(and ordering a new free trial disk every month until we got banned) — not through school or\nsome sort of camp, but by scratching at the door of an utility that many had claimed was open to\nall. This underlying tendril of \"open but not really\" is something I think that sticks a lot when I\nthink of the open social Web and how it's aimed to be developed. It was great for those who could\nget in, had the resources and knowledge on how to participate and didn't see it as anything more\nthan a novelty for nerds (like myself). When it \"grew up\", all of that cutesy stuff was either\nmoved into a closet of nostalgia, shelved into random corners of archives like Wikipedia or worse,\nmade into [pseudo banners of the former Web now made commercial][5]. These were things that aren't\ntalked about explicitly — you have to hunt around for this context. You might know chunks of\nthis depending on how much time you've given to ISPs to exist in these spaces. But this is context\nthat I try to come back to when it comes to forming the Web. At every turn of calamity, one could\nlook to its genesis coming from either a commercial interest, sometimes but not so infrequently,\ncoming from a white man who wanted to make a name for themselves.\n\nThe sociopolitical aspects of a space help determine what kind of ideologies and logics can prevail\nwithin them. This is something that San Francisco's techno fascist mentions in his book, [The Network\nState][6], in the notion of his exploration of what makes up a new country (as well as his choice to\nmimic the flip of sides — reminiscent of the \"flipping\" of the two largest political parties\nin the United States). Since I've grown aware of what I've expected in a space and what I'm coming\nin to expect, I need to make some choices.\n\nDoes this mean that I'll remain active in the IndieWeb? Perhaps, if only to contribute to things as\nI maintain the only parser for Microformats in Rust, a utility list in Rust and I have the same\nutility project parked for Elixir. Languages that aren't as popular, prominent or promoted —\ndespite the front page claims of plurality, it's (understandably) up to each user to keep them up.\nBut I do think that I will move to expect _extremely_ less of the space. It is not a plutocratic\nspace in all tense of the term and unfortunately relies on the free labor (of those who can provide\nit, willingly) of folks who currently can't be supplanted (seemingly due to a lack of communal want).\n\nDoes this mean I'm pushing towards other things? Not really. As I mentioned on Mastodon and I make\nclear in other ways, platform or protocol supremacy is idiotic. It's a sure-fire way to watch\nsomething die over time due to atrophy, stagnation and the same kind of logics that keep aging\nbureaucratic blobs reviled by the majority of their subjects. I'm also not a \"purist\" as I have made\nclear with my choices and actions of platform and protocol plurality; which mirrors my being as\nwell. I'm more interested in getting people to engage and use the Web in a constructive way than I\nam on forcing people on _how_ to do so. This could be considered my reflections of being around the\ncommunity for the last five (or more-so) years; we'll see what I think in another five.\n\n[1]: https://occult.institute/@maya/113161695146777234\n[2]: https://maya.land/the-point/\n[3]: https://indieweb.org/POSSE\n[4]: https://stackingthebricks.com/how-blogs-broke-the-web/\n[5]: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/06/ev-williams-is-the-forrest-gump-of-the-internet/486899/monetize\n[6]: https://thenetworkstate.com/",
  "title": "My (Subtle Want to Engage in a) Divestment from the Open/Social/IndieWeb/Small Web"
}