IndieWeb
indiewebify.me
indiewebify.me
>We should all own the content we're creating, rather than just posting to third-party content silos. Publish on your own domain, and syndicate out to silos. This is the basis of the "Indie Web" movement. ~IndieWebCamp
So... what is "the IndieWeb"? This didn't answer the question.
All based on open technologies, rough consensus, user-centered design and running code, rather than endless mailing lists and technical debate.
Sounds great until your (sub)domain(s) gets censored or targeted.
Why not work on making running a server + website easier?
- https://github.com/Xeoncross/lowendscript
You don't need to run your own server. Point the domain name you own at Squarespace (or Wordpress.org, or hosted Wordpress, or any service you like...) for a low-tech, free or low-cost website where you decide what happens.
Move when you change your mind.
It's more than blog + XFN + pingbacks. The combination of technologies really does allow for decentralized social activities (not just replies), potentially in real-time.
If you don't want to mess with a server, we started an indieweb platform at https://withknown.com. You can always take all your data and move to your own server later on.
We called it the World Wide Web.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really see myself participating much until I can control who sees what information. I'd like sharing photos of my family with family and friends. I don't care to post them publicly. I like discussing politics... with people who can handle a political discussion without hurt feelings or pointless bickering.
The IndieWeb makes a lot of sense for public conversation, though. If I were into blogging, writing, or otherwise producing content as a job or serious hobby, I'd be all over it.
This means that the website would be the tool to send and receive interactions; it would be the storage for all one's content.
This is to avoid those situations when content is removed, censored, etc. on a silo/social network; to have control over your own data and to have a mesh-network-like layout of individual sites that are more not single point of failures in opposition of gigantic monoculture that currently rule the internet.
The reference for the 'like it was all along' is a reminder that a very long time ago the internet was a network of individual websites and you were not bound to use centralized services from corporations.
What's the selling point there?
I like the idea of the IndieWeb, but can you tell people how to get started without such nitty-gritty details?
My personal opinion behind the indieweb is here, in case it makes more sense like this: https://petermolnar.eu/journal/indieweb-decentralize-web-cen...
I think the coolest bit is that each of the pieces is so simple that a coder can get up and running from scratch in an afternoon. That's very different to a lot of the federated social web technologies to date.
I’m one of the founders of Servant – https://www.servant.co – It’s a personal database which you can give apps permission to read and write to. The goal is to allow people to bring their own database to the apps they use and disconnect it whenever they’re done with an app.
We’re in the centralization camp, but we share many goal/themes with the IndieWeb movement.
- Austen austen [at] servant.co
Also, why not just come out and say who this is about - the facebooks/mediums/tumblrs etc
It's about not having control over your representation online. For me, it's also about freedom of identity, and freedom to dictate your own content standards.
Isn't this just centralizing and stream-lining the same process they claim you should be avoiding?
From one perspective, moving your Instagram, Twitter and Facebook posts under your own domain is a kind of centralisation, but it's the least interesting perspective, because so what?
The other perspective is that Facebook's (etc.) centralised service determines what you can do, what you see, who can see what you do, and ultimately because we're all products of our environment, defines you. And isn't that kind of sad?