Unlike you I don't have a dislike of graphics. I do however see value in small simple software. The Web is a runtime so very complex that it takes huge organizations to create.
Theoretically, you could sacrifice full compatibility by implementing only the APIs used for Google, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Amazon etc. and have something much simpler. But that would still be a hard task because you are making a big compatibility hack for certain websites. Like the wine compatibility layer only for websites. Except that the websites could stop working at anytime and then you'll have to pile on more interfaces to keep up with them.
When evaluating software utility we often times forget that websites are software and don't attempt cost them in. Using them is a recurring cost in terms of complexity. They are definitely not free or even low cost.
"I do however see value in small simple software."
Years ago on HN, I had commenters attack statements I made about the value of small, simple software. They literally challenged the terms "small" and "simple". After that I started prefacing these words with "relatively".
"When evaluating software utility..."
Another time, an HN commenter attacked a statement I made about how I evaluate software for myself. He suggested something to the effect that end users were incapable of evaluating software.
I think the presumption of what users want is a kind of classism. Users are humans and as humans we have a hierarchy of needs that can lead to certain tradeoffs. Doesn't mean only the techies appreciate things like privacy and having agency over software. Just because corporations don't give us a choice doesn't mean "the market has decided". So you aren't an outlier you are just aware and maybe more interested in the problem than someone who isn't a programmer.
Theoretically, you could sacrifice full compatibility by implementing only the APIs used for Google, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Amazon etc. and have something much simpler. But that would still be a hard task because you are making a big compatibility hack for certain websites. Like the wine compatibility layer only for websites. Except that the websites could stop working at anytime and then you'll have to pile on more interfaces to keep up with them.
When evaluating software utility we often times forget that websites are software and don't attempt cost them in. Using them is a recurring cost in terms of complexity. They are definitely not free or even low cost.