SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the hope-we-don't-drain-the-battery dept.
Low-tech Magazine explains how to build a low-tech web site, using its own (solar powered) web site as an example. They cover both the web design and the actual hardware in use, an Olimex A20. The idea is to radically reduce the energy use associated with accessing the content, seeing as complex designs with Javascript have burdensome resource requirements that translate into increased use of electricity. Renewable power sources alone are not enough to address the growing energy use of the Internet. Their server is also self-hosted so there's no need for third-party tracking and cookies either.
Low-tech Magazine was born in 2007 and has seen minimal changes ever since. Because a website redesign was long overdue — and because we try to practice what we preach — we decided to build a low-tech, self-hosted, and solar-powered version of Low-tech Magazine. The new blog is designed to radically reduce the energy use associated with accessing our content.
Earlier on SN:
Conservative Web Development (2018)
About a Third of All Web Sites Run on WordPress (2018)
Please, Keep your Blog Light (2018)
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday September 27 2018, @06:48PM (10 children)
Yes I was going to say something similar. All the for profit sites I use I pay for, either directly, or via fees/commission.
As for broadband subsidy. I seem to remember the main reason for the mass explosion of internet was the discovery by the masses of piracy. Originally (for me) audiogalaxy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiogalaxy, the 1998-2002 period). Then later on Kazaa, gnutella, edonkey, etc....
For a lot of people, paying more for broadband was worth it because of the amount of money they saved not having to buy music CDs, or DVD movies. ISPs in fact deliberately did not want to upset these heavy users, which is why they fought so bitterly against being responsible for cutting off pirates. Likewise it is when the fascination with "download speed" started, and they started competing on that (and that alone, a legacy that still haunts us, as nobody advertises their great upload speed, uptime, contention ratio, or "symmetric" lines to end users).
Quite frankly, I don't think online advertising contributed that much to subsidising internet access originally, and now, with the online video/audio streaming segment, the piracy segment, online gaming/banking/shopping, etc... we have plenty of reasons to be able to sustain a good infrastructure just fine without online advertisers, and with them the excuse for all the spying/privacy abuse will fade (because currently, anyone who wants to spy on you for whatever reason, can just state it is "for online advertising", and most people just accept that as a fact of life).
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday September 27 2018, @06:51PM (7 children)
Which has largely been replaced with ad-supported streaming services like Pandora and Spotify.
Much of which is ad-supported.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday September 27 2018, @07:08PM (6 children)
> Which has largely been replaced with ad-supported streaming services like Pandora and Spotify.
Not quite. For one Piracy is still rampant. Even bit-torrent is still a sizable bulk of net traffic, despite being the "out of date" method of piracy nowadays.
Secondly, There is a wealth of completely ad-free internet radio stations, most likely more than Pandora/Spotify, however not being a single "central" type business, it is very hard to gauge the total number of stations/listeners.
those ad-free internet radio stations existed before online advertising, and would exist after. Quite frankly I prefer them to spotify/pandora any day of the week.
> Much of which is ad-supported.
The only one I have used that has ads is youtube, and to be honest, if youtube vanished tomorrow it would not be the end of the world to me, at best it would be a mild irritation for a short time. Plenty of other places to get videos from. I would even consider paying for a youtube like subscription service if I really had the need for on-demand streaming video, or perhaps some kind of "pay-per-stream" in lieu of adverts.
Plenty of ways to adapt to a world without online advertising.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Pino P on Thursday September 27 2018, @07:12PM (1 child)
You prefer them. But do enough of your neighbors prefer them to make it profitable for your ISP to continue to offer your present level of service in your neighborhood?
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday September 27 2018, @09:49PM
Does it matter? Internet radio is such a low bandwidth requirement that even if all my neighbours listened to it every day, or not at all, it would be the difference of a couple of megabits/s, not enough to subsidise broadband massively.
I am pretty sure that within the ISPs corporate structure, overall we provided a profit for them, otherwise they would not bother serving us. If demand for fast connections dropped (which I doubt would happen, pretty much everyone over here uses Iplayer or netflix/amazon, etc.. which are massive bandwidth hogs), then contention ratios would change to keep the balance, llowing those of us left either to utilise more of the pipe for a higher price, or utilise the same pipe for the same price.
I really don't see the logic in claiming I need all my neighbours to be digital gluttons just so I can have broadband. That makes no sense really, because we all have telephone lines, so if all my neighbours dropped their net connections tomorrow, I would get shunted onto another ring, and be on my merry way. The ISP may decide to shut down a ring to save some money after migrating us, and as a result costs would not change substantially.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday September 28 2018, @03:57AM (3 children)
" For one Piracy is still rampant. Even bit-torrent is still a sizable bulk of net traffic, despite being the "out of date" method of piracy nowadays."
What's the up-to-date method??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 28 2018, @05:58AM
RFC1149 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Friday September 28 2018, @11:52AM (1 child)
streamripping seems to be the most popular at the moment, as well as these "third party" streamer sites that have KODI Plugins, and which keep getting shut down.
I don't consider it a "better" method, just one that is more popular now (and hence why the IP industries have taken to prosecuting streamripping and KODI stream sites, and concentrating less on torrent sites).
I guess for the non computer nerds, far easier to get ahold of a pre-built Kodi box with these plugins, and just stream like you would netflix or whatever (plus instant gratification). Easier than faffing about with torrent sites/clients/magnet links, and then having to wait until it is downloaded, or for peers to come online, etc...
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday September 28 2018, @02:04PM
Ah. For a moment I feared we were back to speeding station wagons.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Thursday September 27 2018, @06:59PM (1 child)
Oh, and to add, online advertising is a big mis-allocation of resources. Due to online advertising, we have the concept of the "scrape scammer" as I call them. People who set up a blog/website, etc... and just scrape other peoples content off their sites/forums/newsgroups, and paste it on their site (only sometimes attributed), in no order, or even a consistent theme, on a page absolutely loaded with adverts and JS bullcrap.
They also somehow game Google (I presume by cross linking a lot between other scraper scam sites), to be at the top of the results. 90% of the time when I search for something, I hit these blasted sites. It has actually rendered Google search useless for me. It has reached a point when it is easier for me to go my library and look up something in a book then it is to crawl through a page or more of crap to reach it online, which is the exact opposite of how the internet used to be for me.
A lot of bullshit on the net is fueled by the money brought from advertising, indeed we now even have issues of people ripping off each others videos to try to get some ad-money, necessitating a dedicated law (DMCA seems to be used the most), and a per site team and infrastructure (more costs) just to police and pull down such attempts.
Really, online advertising drives a horrible cesspit of wasted resources and human effort worldwide. I guess offline advertising does the same, but they are limited by the laws of physics and man (i.e. the kind of spying they get away with online would not be allowed in real life, although with Alexa, smart appliances, etc.. the lines are blurring).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Friday September 28 2018, @02:10PM
And... I forget if it was Proctor & Gamble, or Johnson & Johnson, or ? & ?, but some company of that size and general type.... who as a test pulled ALL their ads for six months, and observed NO change in sales. Meaning at least in their sphere, where everyone needs their products and any store "advertises" it simply by putting it on the shelf (and the company has already paid for that product placement) -- the only beneficiaries of advertising are the marketing departments.
Worth noting that marketing departments (and ad agencies) don't exist to sell product; they exist to sell ad campaigns to companies that sell product (cuz otherwise they lose their jobs). And up to half of the product's retail price can be the cost of advertising. How many sales are lost because advertising jacks the price above what at least some consumers wish to pay? that'd be an interesting spreadsheet.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.