in my head, it doesn't make sense to umbrella everything under one term
other than "web" (and even then, we're excluding protocols like Gopher and
the internet (a far better term, imho) is different things at different times
to different people.
to me, it's a space to share resources and platform issues.
to my friend, F, it's a tool to get help with academia.
to a lot of folks here, it's a medium of expression.
to some folks on Instagram, it's a way of influencing others.
why can't it be all of these and more simultaneously, or individually,
similarly, i think that the terms we use aren't unanimously defined.
when i've interacted with other folks in the "web revival",
my definitions have often been different to theirs.
it might have some identical concepts imperative to it:
the vague notions of anti-capitalism, friendliness and personalization,
for instance, but it's also had its own distinct properties that
differ to the definition suggested by the folks i'm interacting with.
keeping the web revival scene small, for instance,
has never been one of the things i think the web revival should be.
i think the Yesterweb highlighted this pretty well:
There is a lot of significance and impact in
words and we have to be careful when we say things like "old web"
and "yesterweb" and "web revival" because it obscures the
fundamentally new aspects of what is going on.
whilst the Yesterweb staff have approached this angle diachronically,
which is important
(as our definitions change, as does the state of the internet:
the "small web" is not small when a billion folks move towards using it),
but i also think that it's equally as important to consider the semantics of
the words we use right now, as they're being used:
why should my "web revival" be your "web revival", or vice versa?
if you and i both talk to the same person, separately, without defining
our own definitions of the web revival, and raise contradicting ideas:
how will that person feel? will they attribute both ideas to their
overall experience of the web revival? will they question two opposing
at the end of the day, if we work on the assumption that we're all going
to have our own (original or parroted) definitions of the web revival
that we're going to have to explain to others when talking,
then maybe the important thing is to ensure that our definitions
(if nothing else) are coherent when we make our voices heard.
lots of words here and my ADHD has made sticking to one point pretty hard.
that being said, i wanted to end my reply by saying that i don't think that
my ramblings are the definitive logic to the web revival.
there's probably an infinite number of counter-arguments and tangents
to all the points i've raised that are equally as interesting and valid.
what i think really matters is that we're all concientious with our lexis.