Yes, we are unlikely to get to a point of an 1800s civil war, of course. But I mean, if things do get that bad, we cannot rule out a divided military as well. How that would work in practice, I'm not sure, since, as you mentioned, armed forces work these days differently as well, and defection like that might not even be feasible, I guess.

Overall I would say civil war is more likely (even given how unlikely it is) than just a robotic uprising that will root out all humanity and make the world unfit for biological beings as the original comment implied.

A war wont happen because Americans are too lazy. Just look how the cities are built, the vast majority simply refuses to walk. To control the population one only has to deny them fuel, and everything else freezes. In older times, everyone was a really hard worker, look at the American civil war, millions in both armies walked thousands of kms. Theres no way a fraction of Americans could or would do that.

A local model has more data than Wikipedia and the Internet Archive is way too large to download on a consumer machine.

A local model works even if the Internet is perfectly firewalled or straight-up down. However, you still need electricity and eventually replacement parts, so in an apocalypse may not work either.

A local model has more data than Wikipedia and the Internet Archive is way too large to download on a consumer machine.

A local model works even if the Internet is perfectly firewalled or straight-up down. However, you still need electricity and eventually replacement parts, so in an apocalypse may not work either.

You would need institutions to do this? What do we have besides global megacorps with the resources for this? Universities perhaps training models for their local catchment?

I’d like to think that people will move back to native, but sadly there’s only one viable platform for native app dev, Apple. I base that statement on the highly fragmented Linux ecosystem and the fact that Microsoft are appear to be actively hostile to windows users. I leave Android out of the picture because of the continual and legally proven trust breaches of the owner.

It does suck. Though Android’s owner does appear to be afraid of Graphene OS so maybe there’s hope.

So a Chromebook?

Not on any platform. The platform needs to have certain characteristics that enable it.

The platform needs to be a monopoly or an oligopoly. A highly distributed platform would be a lot more resilient to the problems created by modern social media because it would be too hard for a single organization to manipulate the news reported by thousands of independent publishers.

The platform needs to financially sustain itself in such a way that the users don't directly contribute to it, otherwise it would be way too easy for users to "vote with their wallet".

The platform use should be allowed (or even encouraged) by state or other important service providers, thus making its use mandatory for the holdouts / those who would normally not use it on conscientious grounds.

Perhaps there are other aspects that I've overlooked.

Phone apps are, in general, an even worse alternative than the original Web because of being either completely closed-source, or even if not, not really allowing simple viewing and modification of the program behavior by the users. The way they are created and distributed amplifies the monopoly aspect and the government / service provider sanctioning aspect.

But, I think, that the problems we see now in Web can be partially addressed technologically and partially legislatively. It doesn't have to be this bad.

On technological level, if social media was available as an Internet application, i.e. as an additional service from your ISP, which would remove the need to sustain it with ads, it would make it less interesting for companies like those that run modern social media platforms to manipulate it.

On legislative level, there should be some form of anti information monopoly laws that would make it illegal to have such an outsized effect for social media platforms and would allow the court to require that a platform is split into multiple platforms. The laws that assign responsibility for the published content and its distribution should also address the problem of mis- and disinformation proliferation through such platforms. Even up to the point that they make it impossible for such platforms to exist (today it's common to blame the lack of moderation on the poor quality of content).

archive.is is the best substitute. For some reason people here won't accept that. They think the internet is still a calm cooperative place like the olden days.

"Anyone know of any good reliable substitutes?"

For me, archive.today, archive.is, archive.md, archive.ph, etc. are _not reliable_ for a number of reasons

But some archive.today users who comment on HN cannot seem to accept that archive.today may not work for everybody else

NB. Archive.today is not a "substitute for archive.org". Archive.today does not do www crawls

As for archive.org, I know of a number of alternatives but each is generally less reliable and/or less comprehensive than archive.org

Comman Crawl, i.e., downloads from data.commoncrawl.org, is reasonably reliable but not as comprehensive as archive.org. CC is not a reasonable substitute for archive.org's CDX service. The CC CDX endpoint, index.commoncrawl.org, historically has been easily overwhelmed and unreliable

As for archive.today alternatives (no crawls, only user-submitted URLs), ghostarchive.org seems well-designed but not used much. No CAPTCHA, HTTPS and Javascript are optional and HAR files are provided. Whether it gets blocked like archive.today sites I do not know

NB. Archive.today users may be using archive.today not as an archive but as a lazy man's solution for "paywalls" (Javascript annoyances)

Where that's the case, comparsions to archive.org or other archives that are derived from crawls are inappropriate

It's not magic. archive.is has no HTTPS record, so ESNI cannot be used.

That superuser thread from 2018 (it's ECH now not ESNI) isn't much help

Although I do like the comment at the bottom that states the problem as disabling SNI not encrypting it. Encrypting SNI/ClientHello is over complicated, which is why ESNI was flawed and (allegedly) why Cloudflare disabled it. The solution to the plaintext SNI problem is to not send SNI (I don't send it unless necessary)

There is an alternative non-TLS method of encrypting traffic, per packet, that allows hosting multiple websites on the same IP. I use it in the homelab. It proves that TLS and SNI is not the only way

There's also a popular archive of www content that does not require SNI. It's older and larger than Cloudflare

The problem with software like Firefox is that it automatically sends SNI to every website no matter if SNI is required or not. The superuser thread mentions a Firefox add-on that no longer works. If Firefox is open source then why not just edit the code and recompile

Clearly, Mozilla is not going to provide a solution. It would rather add support for ESNI and then ECH as opposed to giving users an option to diable sending SNI

Mozilla is pro-surveillance advertising, Cloudflare is pro-surveillance advertising

Fortunately, not every HTTPS website is hosted on a shared IP, not every HTTPS website requires SNI. And popular web browsers derived from Mozilla and Google are not the only user agents

A couple of ways to not send SNI

1. Use an SSL client, e.g., openssl s_client, bssl client, etc.

2. Use a local forward proxy, e.g., stunnel, haproxy, etc.

Even if Cloudflare enables ECH across all the websites it controls, and we have been waiting for years, there is still the issue of SSL termination by Cloudflare. For many of those sites, all the TLS traffic, not just the SNI, is available as plaintext to Cloudflare and to whomever Cloudflare, a US corporation, may or must share it with

What reason does he have to fear for his life?

Given Wikipedia’s decline—people are reading AI-generated answers instead of Wikipedia, and they certainly aren’t clicking on the archived links in the articles’ references—and the rising cost of equipment, what do you see as the motivation for the archive to continue sponsoring Wikipedia in this risky way, which exposes the copyright issues far beyond niche communities like HN? The form of attention, that Wikipedia brings back (FBI, Finnish "bloggers" from WikiTravel, ...) is certainly undesirable, and no one would want to pay for it out of their own pocket.

Look, I'm glad archive.is exists as a resource for preserving paywalled news but it wasn't the one world government that made him DDOS some random guy and tamper with archived content.

It was completely counter-productive too, several orders of magnitude more people learned about the blog post via the DDOS controversy than ever would have without it. And plants a seed of doubt that anything they archive could have been silently modified to satisfy a personal grievance.