That's a them problem. 30 years ago we knew they'd be trouble if they ever adopted the web en masse and they (and the folks that prey on them) have proven that prediction right at every turn.
Once it is be accepted that "normal peoples" need to ingest advertising ad nauseam and each of their movement is being tracked, people who actually value their privacy and a content web become the abnormal peoples.
The author mention the dark web, this is exactly what is happening. If you value your privacy you are now assimilated to criminality and terrorism.
“All members contacted adopted a clandestine behaviour, with increased security of means of communication (encrypted applications, Tails operating system, TOR protocol enabling anonymous browsing on the Internet and public wifi)”.
“All members of this group were particularly suspicious, only communicating with each other using encrypted applications, in particular Signal, and encrypting their computers and devices […].
"The elements of the investigation that have been communicated to us are staggering. Here are just some of the practices that are being misused as evidence of terrorist behavior6:
– the use of applications such as Signal, WhatsApp, Wire, Silence or ProtonMail to encrypt communications ;
– using Internet privacy tools such as VPN, Tor or Tails7 ;
– protecting ourselves against the exploitation of our personal data by GAFAM via services such as /e/OS, LineageOS, F-Droid ;
– encrypting digital media;
– organizing and participating in digital hygiene training sessions;
– simple possession of technical documentation."
Now using encryption and secure messaging with anything but whatsapp and imessage marks you as a potential terrorist, later it will be ad blockers, disabled javascript, not using chrome's WEI and using the smol net/web.
I couldn't really process your comment because you rounded up to 30. It got me thinking, there was such a huge gulf between 1993 and 1996, at least for me. 1993: derping DOS on a 386; 1996: Windows 95, Quake, dialup, the Web. The pace of change might seem rapid these days, but the 90s were insane fast.
Maybe it's just my perception of things, but the changes back then were exciting and usually made things better for users. Today changes makes my user experience worse, with spyware on top. I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my drift.
There's nothing unapproachable about a 100% static site with some server-rendered navigation elements, much like livejournal was in the early 2000s. Much like HN is today.
Perfectly 'approachable' even on mobile devices.
The only thing that makes sites like this and that 'unapproachable' is stunningly high (genuine, not stat-massaged) levels of functional illiteracy.
Part of the promise of the web is democratized expression. So, not just approachable for people accessing content, but for people wanting to share. From their phone or tablet or XR device, even, since those are the computers people spend most of their time with. IME, "deploying" (I hate that word, we need another) from one of those devices is not indicative of functional illiteracy, but the lack of an approachable solution. Even just putting the instructions on a simple webpage instead of in a github readme would be a good first step.
Also that unless you play the stupid SEO games, your approachable site is never going to rank on Google. And as we know, the normies won't even scroll the search page, let alone go to page 2 (or use a better search engine). So they'll only get whatever scammy ridiculous clickbait the SEO agencies have put together for the corporate sites so they can rank for that keyword (and not even relevant keyword - ranking for any keyword is "good" now).
For people who are accustomed to clicking "new post" there's definitely something unapproachable about mediating the relationship between your DNS registrar and your hosting provider.
I'm just saying that if it's gonna be a techies web and a non-techies web we ought to recognize that some of us tend toward toxic elitism and work to counteract it.
As much as I enjoy being a Linux snob and a person with Stack Overflow reputation and a pedantic nitpicker on Wikipedia, I don't think that those parts of me, left unchecked at scale, make for a nice community. I want other kinds of specialists around and I don't want them to feel like second class citizens because they don't know their way around a private key (or, if that's unavoidable, I want to have at least tried to teach them).
This is an honest question, please treat it as such. What is toxic about the notion that some things just aren't for everyone and that's probably ok? Is there a moral or ethical requirement to pitch to the lowest common denominator and if so why?
There's nothing toxic about acknowledging that some things are not for everyone.
I'm specifically interested in the ability to share your ideas with your peers in a way that resists tampering by third parties, provided you're willing to put in a reasonable amount of work re: learning to do so.
If we let that be the mark of a privileged class, then we might as well go back to the middle ages.
They're victims of capitalism gone-astray, not traitors. If we abandon them we'll only have each other to talk to. I don't like us enough to do that.
Besides, we have to deal with the consequences of their votes, so it's in our interests to oppose whoever would manipulate them because those manipulators are threats to things that we care about. Things like privacy, and the ability to control the devices that we "own" in ways that contradict the vendor's wishes.
