Are we reviving the old web or building something new?

[/home/user/]

Hey there,

there seems to be an invisible division among people who can generally be counted as part of "our subculture": people who in some way use and create a web independent from the large players, usually utilizing an aesthetic inspired by the past, with a focus on personal expression and limited algorithmic and corporate influence.

On one hand, we have people who attempt to emulate what we used to have as closely as possible, and on the other hand, we seem to have people who attempt to build something new that combines the good aspects of the past with what we have learned during the 2010s and 2020s. This has some direct influence on web design: for example, do we use proprietary software or not? Do we think the browser wars were endearing or destructive (e.g. do we use iframes)? Do we think that corporate ownership of the internet as it was in the 90s through AOL et al was part of a more cozy internet or the beginning of the end? I have seen some people express this idea before, but I have not seen any larger discussion about it.

Is our general goal as individuals to revive the old web as it was in the 1990s and early 2000s? Or is our goal to build something new, perhaps merely inspired by what used to be there? Do we have an ideology and a goal for our indie web, or do we just think the 90s internet was better in every way? For example, very practically: do we use modern designed, but safe, free & open source, and self hostable chat protocols like Matrix (that might not be 90s-like, but do follow our general philosophy of independence and opposition to monetization), or do we use these MSN/ICQ revival services, which were arguably the beginning of corporate influence, spyware and costly "solutions" to commodify the internet?

Of course there are many different colorful individuals in this community and the indie web overall, so it is hard to make such hard divisions possible, but there seems to be a trend to both sides, generally. For example, Melonking itself definitely works with "old" components of web design like GIFs, older 3D modelling techniques and whimsical autoplaying, but I'd be lying through my teeth if I said that I had ever seen anything like Melonking during the 90s or early 2000s. It's something entirely new, only really possible with 2020s internet speeds, tools and cultural impact. On the other hand, plenty of Neocities websites attempt to closely and uncritically emulate Web 1.0 or Web 2.0 without examining what was actually bad about the time: the culture for one, corporate influences like Microsoft running amok on our internet, and advertisements everywhere (even if it was the fun little blinkie banners). Plenty of people seem to have no ideology whatsoever about what makes the modern web bad, only that it does; and then fall in the same corporate pitfalls like Cohost, rehosting MSN/ICQ, repopulating old centralized social media, and so on, trying to emulate the 90s web.

It really is like the traditional-modern-postmodern division in art: are we just blindly imitating the traditional art of web design uncritically, or are we building a postmodern version of what we liked from back then, ironically remixed with a ton of self-awareness and today's influence into something new and better?

[Icelogist]

I am apart of the "new" set of sites. Basic web design principles, a professional logo, rounded corners, etc.

About the "split" within the indie web community about the best approach to reviving or building upon the old web. Yes, there are some people believe that the goal should be to closely emulate the web as it was in the 1990s and early 2000s, while others believe that we should aim to create something new that is inspired by the past but incorporates their own design principles and their own set of technologies.

I personally believe that we should allow people to experiment with and embrace a variety of styles and technologies, including those that may be considered "old." That's the true beauty of building your own site! However, I also think it is important to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, such as blindly embracing corporate influence or neglecting accessibility.

To achieve this balance, I believe that a web revival should be used as a learning tool for the history of the internet to learn what went right and what went wrong, while an indie web should strive for a balance of new and old technologies. By doing so, we can create something new and meaningful that celebrates the diversity and creativity of its users, without repeating the mistakes of the past.

It is important to recognize that not everyone may agree on the best approach, and it may be difficult to find a solution that everyone can agree upon. So so there will always be different standards and disagreements between each site of what we are trying to achieve, but hopefully we can find some standards that the majority will agree with.

[TheFrugalGamer]

I probably fall under the "new" side as well. I was part of the original birth of the web, so I remember the parts of it that weren't so great. But really the thing that matters most to me is that we have the ability to express ourselves the way we like, and that what we've built serves our needs. That's why the overwhelming corporate influence is bad--it stifles self expression and redirects our actions so that they serve a profit motive rather than our own.

I think it's important to keep in mind though that imitation is often a stepping stone towards making something unique. It's generally how people learn--once you figure out how to emulate something, those skills can then be repurposed to make something new. Since websites are always changing, it may be more accurate to view faithful recreations of web 1.0 design as a beginning rather than a completed project.

[tarraxahum]

I'm probably not only "new", I'm a very, what's it called, on-the-surface kind of a participant? My website hardly looks new and modern (both thanks to my lack of coding skills and my geniuine enjoyment of the messy aethetic), but I'm also perhaps not even half as educated on the subject as I should be to call myself part of the web-revival movement fully.

I was a kid when the old web was still around. Actually, I was probably a kid during the very transtion from that web to the new one and never fully witnessed the true old web at all. I'm also not very well-versed in computer science at all.

What I do remember and do miss is frankly the individuality and still a considerable freedom. Customization of things. My experiences with using website builders and making bright eye-bleeding pages stuffed with pictured of my favorite stuff. The word "cringe" not existing in the sense it does now.

These days I've been finding myself growing exponentially frustrated with 1) the lack of meaningful customization and therefore personality, 2) algorithms and 1000 and 1 way to get your content removed or buried, 3) the constant advertisement and sanitization of space to make it even more sellable and 4) the speed of the conversation and how easy it is to engage in conflict. Comment sections are scary, "read today" receipts are a blight, the pressure of being perfect lest someone devides to call you out for nothing is paralyzing, the expectation of being constantly online is tiring.

So when I bumped into this whole web revival thing, for me it was a sudden chance to escape back to that control I felt I had when I was a kid. The ability to present my art however I want, to style it however I want, to add bright colors and obnoxious gifs everywhere again. To talk on forums instead of twitter threads, slowly and with big posts. Although Discord is still everywhere even on the yesterweb, so the speed part is...nor here nor there.

Is simply wanting to take my agency of self-expression and make being online actually enjoyable again instead of soul-sucking a goal enough? Does it really count if in order to show that art to people I'd still have to post the link on actual social media 'cause not everyone moved to Neocities? I honestly don't know.

Glad to be along for the ride though.

[Melooon]

Iv been thinking about this topic! I don't wanna add too much because Im more interested in other peoples replies - but I do wanna say I totally agree with tarraxahum! The websites themselves are less important than the feeling of agency that having your own web space provides; its about looking at the impact of the internet on our lives and asking if and how it can work better for us as creative individuals. Do the sites themselves matter? Totally! But maybe not as much as what they represent to their creators  

It's something entirely new, only really possible with 2020s internet speeds, tools and cultural impact.
xxx
 are we building a postmodern version of what we liked from back then, ironically remixed with a ton of self-awareness and today's influence into something new and better?

You are also totally correct that my site did start as a post-modern critique of the web (I was studying web design in college and I deliberately wanted to annoy my tutor even if he never saw it) - and its totally meant to be a fantasy 90s site - but I think its grown beyond that - I'd maybe describe my view of the web revival as "connectivism" - the art exists within the connections between things, not in any one thing itself - connections in time, in ideas, in mediums and technologies - I think thats the best thing we can offer the world today, which is so caught up with divisions

[sig]

I'm probably not only "new", I'm a very, what's it called, on-the-surface kind of a participant? My website hardly looks new and modern (both thanks to my lack of coding skills and my geniuine enjoyment of the messy aethetic), but I'm also perhaps not even half as educated on the subject as I should be to call myself part of the web-revival movement fully.

I feel the same way. I've experienced a bit from the Old Web (especially a defunct Dutch fansite for the Mario series is dear to my heart) but at this point in my life I've put more time into Web 2.0 sites like Twitter and Reddit. My site probably has some things in common with 'classic' Web 1.0 sites but it's never been about that for me. I just started working on it one day and by winging it I came close to something that fit my tastes. I think maybe because we're using tools that have completely been replaced on the mainstream Internet, it's easy to build something that's closer to Web 1.0 than modern sites? I don't know if that makes sense...

To get back to the main topic, I think we're definitely headed for a more post-modern take on the old web because the current indieweb culture is heavily influenced by people getting weary of and subsequently rejecting modern social media. A lot of sites I see pop up when browsing 'last updated' on Neocities contain some text along the lines of 'I'm here because I'm done with social media', and I can imagine that a lot of people will also be taking more modern Internet sensibilities with them. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, because now there's room to explore one's interests with much more freedom than Web 2.0 allows for.

Besides, culture is a constantly evolving thing. I think that if 'our' Web 2.0 never happened as it did, the current Internet would still be pretty different from Web 1.0. We can emulate the past if we want, but the fact is that we're in the future and we're looking back on what we enjoyed, which colours our perspective and subsequently affects the things we put out there. And that's fine!

[orcuslightningearth]

/home/user/
I can't really speak with regard to the subculture. Which I recognize is your intent, so I apologize in advance as I will likely be leaving the bounds of your topic. I definitely cannot speak to the visual art aspect of your post; I am no artist. But I think I understand some of the underlying emotions. I believe there is… "an ugliness" in forcing things: remaining in a place you are not wanted, keeping something alive, no matter the cost. Were I a part of this "revival", whatever is built, I'd hope for it to arise organically. I think that would be best. Unfortunately, I also think that the presence of forces uninterested in the natural development of anything, particularly, but not exclusively, if money is involved, is self-evident. In the presence of such climate, I can understand a need for direction / clarity / mandates.

Icelogist, TheFrugalGamer & tarraxahum
I strongly agree with the importance of education in a community such as this. The foundation of autonomy, individuality, self-sufficiency, etc. is partly manifested a result of learning. I feel that the knowledge and underlying principles are not a given, and any attempt to make it easier for people should be considerably valued. What would be the best ways to teach people about making your own website? And, before even that, what would be the best ways to teach people that having your own space online is something worthwhile? Even at personal cost.

Melooon

I'd maybe describe my view of the web revival as "connectivism" - the art exists within the connections between things, not in any one thing itself - connections in time, in ideas, in mediums and technologies

Would you call it a… "strand type"?

EDIT: I want to apologize for the video I linked to here. I wanted to ensure that what I was referencing was clear, but in hindsight, the video's tone can insinuate that I intended negativity. I intended a playful quip, one regarding a person with a similar message to that of "connectivism" and their attempt at exploring it.

[TheFrugalGamer]

OrcusLightningEarth:

I think the biggest thing when it comes to learning is usually the barrier to entry. Fortunately, the barrier for HTML is pretty low--you can start with a simple text editor and test everything locally in your own browser. No expensive IDE packages, no licensing to worry about; if you have a PC you've probably already got all of the tools. There are probably lots of folks who still don't know that, though, especially because of Web2.0 which introduces a lot of server-side processing and complicated packages and layers of abstraction. Any time we can emphasize that these sorts of technologies are optional and not needed for a fully functional website will probably help.

Hosting is another matter, and I think Neocities and others like it that offer simple webhosting for free go a long way towards bridging the gap between paid servers/domain names and hobbyist sites. I think we could use a lot more of these types of services so that people would feel like making the jump to having a website isn't as daunting.

[debleb]

to me the goal is a continuation of personal websites in the 90s/2000s, not really a revival. we’re doing something new working off the base of what there was before. that’s why i usually prefer to say personal or small web etc instead of retro web.

[Cele]

I'm sure all the "techniques" used on my websites existed even back in 00s at least. So in that way, it is simply the same old. But my websites are not made with the intention of mimicking old sites but instead portray me as I am today. I do like pixel art though. On my main site I actually use iframes quite heavily, then I also have other websites where I don't use them. The techniques I use I use because those are the ones I know. I learned them back in the day.

My "problem" with modern internet is actually mainly social media like Twitter and Tiktok and I truly feel that they, with the way they promote outrage, cause division among individuals that could in other situations just simply agree to disagree. I want an escape from that.

[appleAlc]

I think that the goal should be to create something new while embracing web 1.0; though I am by no means the most educated on much of this, I don't think seeking to fully return to the past is often a particularly healthy goal. The circumstances in which this movement arises are different in a bevy of ways as compared to those of web 1.0