HTMLNeutrality

Net Neutrality is a big concern that a lot of anons have been talking about lately, and we've seen arguments from both sides of the issue.
One of these arguments is that losing Net Neutrality will cause websites to get throttled unless you pay extra to an ISP,
and even then, some sites may still get throttled.

This is a very good point, but allow me to bring up a separate issue that some autistic anons and people in tech
have brought up in the past that might actually have a relation to this Net Neutrality concern.
That issue is of website bloat. I've seen anons bring this issue up on a few occasions, complaining about the
inherent bloat created by Javascript and other related interpreted languages, libraries, and frameworks
being used on the web. These bloated technologies can also very easily be used to spy on us, which is part of
the reason for certain popular web browser extensions such as NoScript and uMatrix.

The thing is, it's not just people on imageboards complaining about this. Many people in tech have brought up
this issue as well. Our lord and savior, Richard Stallman, includes a reference to an article on this topic
in his "How I do my computing" article, saying that he agrees with it and that it inspired the layout of his site.
stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
The article is one by Olia Lialina, author as well as Co-founder of the Geocities Research Institute.
contemporary-home-computing.org/RUE/
In this article, Olia makes a case against Web 2.0. Although it does not directly relate to bloat, it does
bring up the idea that users are not creating their own experiences on the internet, but are merely following
the shaped experience predefined by the author, hiding programmability and customizability of a system.
She also brings up that old Web 1.0 maymays such as peeman.gif, despite their crudeness, offer more expressiveness
than what is provided by modern sites. "because it is an expression of a dislike, when today there is only an opportunity to like"
It is my opinion that these shaped experiences also contribute to bloat.

Another person who has shared this sort of view is Maciej Ceglowski, who has released a talk/article
entited "The Website Obesity Crisis".
idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm
In it, he explains that websites have become needlessly bloated, with one of his opening points being that a single tweet nowadays
is larger than a full-length Russian novel, and that even sites from Facebook and Jewgle that should be about reducing this bloat
are extremely and unneccessarily so. He also brings up the point of "Chickenshit Minimalism", or minimal sites that are still
overwhelmingly bloated due to Javascript shit.

This idea has been shared on Jewtube as well, with Bryan Lunduke creating "The World Wide Web Sucks", which has similar views as
the Ceglowski article.
youtube.com/watch?v=tefielQeHZY
He discusses the immense bloat of a browser attempting to load a common website such as CNN.com, in comparison to great software
achievements such as the system used the Apollo 11 Computer, or the original DOOM. He ends this talk by suggesting that the web should
return to HTML. Even Terry A. Davis brings up bloat, although referring to software rather than websites.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ihli_guFhkU

So what does this all mean to Net Neutrality? Well if sites will be throttled, these bloated designs will have a hard time loading
on a slow connection. Hell, some people already have trouble loading them even with Net Neutrality!
But the idea of reducing the bloat and returning to an older web can have an impact here. If websites are throttled, owners will
still want people to come visit their sites. So a possible solution for them is to get rid of the needless Javascript, simplify
things, and thus have a site that will load very efficiently under the Net Neutrality-less internet.

I say that we use Net Neutrality as a means of killing off the bloat of the World Wide Web, and making it decentralized again.
What are your thoughts?

Sure, HTML is garbage. But I'm more curious why you think that using opinions of (literally) retarded people to back up your arguments is a good idea.

Stallman and Terry?
Well Stallman is the creator of the GNU operating system, the GNU project, the Free Software Foundation, and is a well-known and respected figure in technology for these achievements. Sure a lot of what he says can be very autistic and laughed at, but most of the time he's on the ball.

Terry I added just because he's a meme

The issue is that, if you want to bring normalfags into the loop of your campaign, you cannot start with people that are too polarizing. They will get themselves involved either way (except Davis, since TempleOS has no network by default and he doesn't seem like the type to care about this). Stallman does have some very good points, but he's autistic to the extreme and is more of an activist rather than a programmer by now. And he will 100% try to turn this into a free software advocacy group, which will turn even more uninitiated people away.

Instead, I'd propose to turn this into a good old environmentalism debate. Since the west is obsessed with it for quite a while now (carbon footprints, muh clean energy, muh fossil fuels, recycling everything e.t.c.) this might reignite an old flame. After all, if absolutely every major website has a slow architecture, is bloated to the extreme, and downloads greater-than-needed amount of data to billions of users every day, this puts extra strain on the servers and network. Which leads to lesser server hardware lifespan (that need rare earth metals to be produced, farming space for asteroids is a distant dream) and an increased amount of electricity. And you don't want to ruin nature with your Goybook, now do you, fellow normalfag?

This then can be expanded to the FCC as well, seeing how Net Neutrality de facto allows these gigantic corporations to get away with going through an insane amount of bandwidth while piling the hard work on the ISPs. So remove NN policies and make those evil conglomerates to pay for ruining the environment :^)

The issue is that no matter what how big of an /ideaguy/ you are unless you have a working implementation of your ideas nobody will care. And even then you have to not just offer an alternative to an already established way of things but offer a better alternative that people will want to use not just out of moral obligations.

Webextensions offering full-on browser 'apps' would be one horrible alternative. Otherwise, there are already mounds of apps for smartphones. Do the same for PC, there are some frameworks out there for cross-platform capabilities (Qt for one).

Still, you're right that likely nobody will care. Just thought stirring some shit with the aid of what used to be hippies sounded like fun.

Another thing you can do to reduce bandwidth usage is use more efficient image formats, such as animated PNG.

sure are a lot of jew shills in this thread

cool idea op

Animadet PNG is garbage. Wake up and realize already that animated image = video without sound. Just use WebM if you need animated "images".

I just browse with Lynx or Links most of the time. That solves most of the problems. Granted, I can't access fancy Web 2.0 sites that require JS, but chances are I don't want to. I've been to enough of them with Firefox that I know what it's like, and it pretty much sucks. Browing with Netscape and early versions of Firefox wasn't so bad, but now shit's all retarded both on websites and in the popular browsers.