Well, I thought I made that pretty clear in what I posted.
"Maybe the internet as a whole is intractable. But perhaps we can get a meaningful digest of snapshots of the important stuff that can work over slow links, intermittent links, and one-way links?"
Since the whole point of the internet is, you know, people can request what they want and communicate with others, and they already HAVE people shoving ‘important stuff’ their way, what exactly do you think that adds to the picture?
> what exactly do you think that adds to the picture?
- Othernet is already a system out of local control that can be received with relatively trivial equipment.
- 2000bps feels perhaps a bit too slow, but with an order of magnitude more bandwidth, you could have a -lot- of textual communication. It could carry a big cross-section of what everyone is saying and allow people to choose what they see.
- An ideal system would support multiple transports; Othernet, intermittent wifi connectivity, sneakernet, etc. It would do the best with what it can to get data in or out, and allocate the scarce resources to the traffic which is most likely to be useful to others (this is tricky, with sybil attacks, etc... but I don't think it's necessarily intractable).
That is-- I love the interactive internet, but wouldn't it be cool if it gracefully degraded to still provide "postcards" and "broadcast radio" and a bit more as capacity went down, intermittency went up, and inability to return traffic was sometimes a factor?
> That is-- I love the interactive internet, but wouldn't it be cool if it gracefully degraded to still provide "postcards" and "broadcast radio" and a bit more as capacity went down, intermittency went up, and inability to return traffic was sometimes a factor?
This already exists, it's called ham radio. There are even large communities of folks sending 'postcards' to each other on a regular basis.
I'm probably failing to articulate what I'm describing. Not really. I've been part of the SSTV scene. I know about packet and things like PACTOR etc too.
I remember operating a UUCP site, and I remember how well network news gracefully dealt with quite a wide variety of sites with different ad-hoc setups. I miss that. I wish more of today's internet was a bit more like that: all the interactivity in the world when the network is good, but gracefully degrading to offline copies, snapshots, etc as the network is intermittently disconnected or one-way or whatever.
Secure ScuttleButt ("SSB") does a lot of this, but there's no real one-way provision and it's a bit wack to use and discover your way through.
The reason I think you’re getting so much confusion is it doesn’t seem to make any sense to folks what you’re proposing.
It seems like an edge case either already served by existing tech except for some very, very small set of situations where most won’t consider it practical or useful anyway. They’ll just knuckle under the societal rules which forbid it, because the cost of doing it in a way they won’t likely be caught and imprisoned isn’t worth it to them.
Most people just care about having food in their belly every day, feeling safe and loved, and being able to believe that what they’re doing is okay day to day and will work out to be all good in the future.
Doing what you’re proposing doesn’t really help them with that.
> It seems like an edge case either already served by existing tech except for some very, very small set of situations where most won’t consider it practical or useful anyway
Yes, it's all about the edge cases that don't affect the commercial value of the network much. It's about dealing with natural disaster, intermittent and very low quality network connections by modern standards, people in remote areas, or censorship. It may even be about space missions and distant probes in the future.
SSB is a neat system if you're on a sailboat with connectivity every few days. Othernet is a neat system for pushing what satellite communications can do to the limit. Of course, systems being technically neat is not what gets them adopted.
Networks, network capacity, and network reach have grown so much that we've forgotten about UUCP, etc. We have better algorithmic tools and more computation to build networks that tolerate disconnection, intermittency, etc. But perhaps we don't have the commercial motivation to use them, even if they would make the networks and societies that use them more robust.
I think to answer your underlying question of ‘why’ a bit.
You say ‘robust’ for societies as if it’s a given positive, but there is an implied statement hidden there.
Robust against what?
Robust against censorship is rarely desired by the majority (and certainly not openly), because the censorship is with the consent (and often at the request of!) the majority.
Just look at the CSAM/Kiddie Porn discussion in the US.
At least as long as the majorities interests and the gov’ts interests align enough, which is usually for far longer than anyone wants to admit.
So as long as it doesn’t step on the majorities ability to get what they want when they want it more than they are willing to tolerate, robustness against it will always be a feature with a limited market and a lot of opposition. An anti-feature in some ways, or at least it will be spun that way.
We may consider robustness against this good - and I personally do - but in my experience that is far from a common attribute, especially if you boil it down to specific examples.
Should Pakistan be able to robustly send how to bomb US targets + propaganda to everyone? Should someone be able to do the same with child porn? Or anti-Islamic rhetoric? Or anti-women’s rights? Or anti-free speech?
I think I explained "robust" in the post above pretty well. It's about making a network that works and delivers information even when things go wrong or when there's not much infrastructure available.
Primarily for the use case where there's just not much reliable infrastructure. I like the idea of getting a local snapshot of news, important source repository updates, and other things important to me during little snippets of connectivity.
But this also makes things useful for the case where the infrastructure is impaired. Perhaps by natural disaster. Perhaps by state interference. Perhaps by individual commercial actors.
Yes, "how does one determine what the network distributes broadly" is a complicated question. It should be democratic and resilient to being coopted. I understand this is very, very hard. But I don't think it's intractable, and even without it the other building blocks of a network like this are attainable (general resilience and reliability).
"Maybe the internet as a whole is intractable. But perhaps we can get a meaningful digest of snapshots of the important stuff that can work over slow links, intermittent links, and one-way links?"