Why I Believe in Personal Websites | Hacker News Reader

Why I Believe in Personal Websites

twitter.com

15 pointsxhfloz5 comments

The view people have of the "old internet" is even more rose-tinted than we tell each other.

The majority of people did not have websites. The majority of people did not even know how to use a computer. The reason websites looked the way they did was because everyone had to make do with what they had on hand, and it wasn't much. They weren't designers, they didn't know anything about usability or readability, they just wanted to put something out there. And it was awful. It was unreadable. And most of those sites died. The sites that still remained are quite similar to the ones we have now.

The reason we have such "boring" webpages is because they're content-focused. There's plenty of design-focused websites too, but they're proper, not erratic. We need websites to be accessible and to load fast.

The irony is that those same 90's looking websites can often times be full of JS and images that slow down your computer.

We have talked about megacorps owning our content and online identity, but domains and hosting is not much different either. Especially if you're not deploying yourself and using some product.

And do most people really need their own website, and in this time specifically, where any public information can be weaponized?

I fully support hosting your own site, but we should be focusing on secure and anonymous tech. I2P, Tor, Monero, IPFS. That's the wild west, that's the real web we should be using. Pure, unfiltered content and online interaction, truly out of reach and personalized.

I hear you. For what it's worth, I do specifically caution against the nostalgia-driven rose-tinting (https://twitter.com/xhfloz/status/1631746051295117313).

A few other notes.

1. I don't think the point of design and color and a rich visual culture is just to be "not boring" and "erratic" and look at me! I'm so random! It's closer to why we appreciate public art installations, beautiful architecture, well-designed parks. So on. If we spend a large chunk of our lives online -- whether or not that is good, is a separate discussion -- then I believe we should care a great deal about how that space is presented. Whether we feel it's inhabited by other people, instead of mega-corps -- is important. Imagine if the real world became just a super-sized mega-mall.

2. We absolutely /should/ focus on the list of concerns you mentioned. I don't think it's either/or though (I'm happy to hear arguments for why they're mutually exclusive). I am, as part of mmm.page, working on a few things that will help people create private spaces just for their friends.

Let me know if that addresses your concerns.

I find meaning in privacy, so I've never had a personal website or a public presence, but just wanted to say that I think this is a really cool product and I hope a lot of people use it.

Thank you. I am working on some social features right now that will let people lock down pages to a small group of people. Like a local social network. (Because, I feel you too. The tension between keeping private, and also wanting a more signs of life on the internet.)

I spent the past two years re-writing mmm.page, and as I prepare to release it, summarized some thoughts on why I'm working on it, and why I think there is a possibility of a richer, more personal internet.

Try it here: https://build.mmm.page. (You can edit the homepage without an account.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com