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