SMALL INTERNET, LONG ANSWERS The rule for success on the internet, small or otherwise, is "content, content, content", so as long as I've spent time I might otherwise have put into a phlog post on writing excessively long free-form answers for Tomasino's Small Interet Survey, I'll dump them here as well. I'm actually not entirely sold on all aspects of the 'small internet' movement, and it does kind-of show towards the end. Lest this bias his results one way or other, I suggest that if you intend to enter your own survey response, you do so before reading mine. He also accepts responses via email, if like me you don't take to the Javascript-reliant survey form linked from the below gophermap: gopher://gopher.black:70/1/phlog/20220626-small-internet-survey 1. I participate in the following area(s) of the small internet (select all that apply) - [#] Gopher - [ ] Gemini - [#] Self-hosted individual website - [#] Small social communities like tildes, pubnixes, neocities - [#] Other 2. What other areas of the small internet do you enjoy? A short answer may be the Tildiverse NNTP service. Beyond that there rises the question of how the small internet should be defined. Is it primarily a social or technological construct? A quick search fails to find a Wikipedia page for the "small internet", which possibly suggests that it's not a notable term in overall English-speaking culture. From a social context then, the application of the term should be limited significantly to those spheres where it is already widely understood by most participants. This in particular rules out most newsgroups on Usenet, for example, even though I think that textual communication via NNTP is a good example of the technological aspirations of the 'small internet' community. It also rules out the website that I referred to in my answer to the previous question, because it was designed following principles which accord with the general concept of the 'small internet', but this was done before I became aware of that. From a technological context the net of services covered by the term 'small internet' is cast vastly wider. There I can include of course Usenet, and also mailing lists (mainly one still barely active). To say nothing of email itself, which I at least send and read in a plain-text 'small internet' way. I browse FTP occasionally, most often downloading music in the form of tracker modules and SID chiptunes, lately even showing a preference for using command-line clients. I always preference viewing websites compatible with lightweight browsers, and use 'browserless' services provided over HTTP/S such as wttr.in. However my interest in new internet protocols embraced within the community has been less strong. 3. I became active in the small internet ... (select all that apply) - [#] to avoid surveillance capitalism - [#] to express myself more freely - [#] because of the community - [#] because of the technologies - [ ] because of nostalgia for the early internet - [#] because of bandwidth or technical limitations - [#] Other 4. What other aspects or motivations drew you to the small internet? Again this depends on the social/technological definition of 'small internet'. Technologically it's a label that can be assigned to my internet usage preferences at all times. Sheer stubbornness about not wanting to upgrade computer hardware and pay for a decent internet service are probably the biggest drivers of my internet usage, which kept me in 'small internet' habits before I knew of them as a public philosophy. What I have done is to use one of the new Tilde services to host some sorts of content anonymously on Gopher which I hadn't previously added to my website. Much of this is inspired by the social aspects of the 'small internet' community rather than the technological ones, because the latter already applied quite well to my website. 5. When browsing the web, which techniques or technologies do you regularly employ to better your experience? (select all that apply) - [#] Ad blocker, Pi Hole or similar - [#] Disable Javascript - [ ] Disable Images - [#] Disable or override stylesheets - [ ] Reader mode - [ ] Text browser - [#] Zooming in browser or similar assistive technologies * - [ ] Modifying a live website with developer tools * When I have to enable stylesheets but my screen is too small to suit them (it's still 800x600 sometimes!). 6. What percentage of your time online is spent engaging in the small internet (creating content or browsing content)? (select one) - [ ] < 5% - [ ] 6-10% - [ ] 11-20% - [ ] 21-30% - [ ] 31-40% - [ ] 41-50% - [#] > 50% * * Assuming a technological definition. Also not clear whether it includes using internet for work, or watching Youtube videos, which I download and watch later on my TV. I'm assuming not. 7. In your opinion, what makes something part of the small internet? I've already referenced the possibility of separate social and technological definitions for the "small internet". Both attract me, but I do find the technological ideas are what I'm most interested in. I believe those centre on the search for means of online communication with simplistic implementations and minimal computational requirements. Socially, there's an emphasis on avoiding the influence of businesss on the design and hosting of these services by sharing resources and content as widely and freely as possible. It's hard to find an honest way to classify something as part of this small internet. In part this is because there is something of an illusion to the whole concept. Internet and computer engineering itself isn't really compatible with the ideas of the small internet. Access to the internet requires some sort of modem which occasionally needs to be upgraded on the whim of controlling ISPs who charge customers at minimum rates which commonly make the bandwidth savings from 'small internet' browsing financially irrelevent. The modem itself likely requires one or more proprietary binary firmwares, and probably a Javascript-based web interface for configuration, artificially limited in functionality. The technical standards that the modem uses to encapsulate the internet data and verify the user's account are unlikely to follow the ideals of 'small internet' simplicity and openness. Indeed free public documentation for them may be very limited, or entirely unavailable. The scope of the 'small internet' philosophy therefore is by necessity limited to some top layer of implementation which may be arbitrarily defined. The Gemini protocol is a good example of this, where encrypted connections add one more highly complex layer underneath the apparent 'small internet' simplicity on the surface of its specification. In practice then, there is a highly superficial element to the 'small internet', which defies many of its own core ideals. A true 'small internet' could only exist separately from the main internet, based perhaps on technology like WiFi or packet radio, where intermediate service providers are not required and therefore can not impart their own commercial interests. But then of course, without the limitless bounds of existing internet infrastructure, a true 'small internet' might actually be a bit too small. As it stands, the 'small internet' is an ideal that individual content creators aspire to. We judge their personal aspirations from the technical decisions that they make in hosting their content, and from that a social group is formed. A group of people _trying_ to achieve something different, even though they don't really know what the true realisation of that vision is, and don't really have any chance of acheiving it. But at least they try. 8. In your opinion, what is the biggest drawback of the small internet? The lack of a complete and popular implementation adhearing to 'small internet' ideals, as described in my last answer. - The Free Thinker