I don't see how Site.js is any different than what he describes as "big web". So you create your own website and host it on a server. That's always been possible. What am I missing?
Look at the Great Leap Forward. Ideologues see everything which dares to disagree with them in even an aesthetic sense as ideological while the target wonders what the hell are they talking about. To be frank no matter how well educated they may be they are fundamentally complete idiots because of their insensitivity to reality.
I think "Big Web" is a profile hosted on "cloud infrastructure" owned by a company with public stock. Whereas "small web" is a website you build/create yourself and host on your own server?
But what is "your own server"? Yeah I host my personal site on my raspberry pi, but most people aren't going to do that. They're going to host on a server owned by a company with public stock.
It seems to me like one could market a device that isn't much more than a RPI that would download a container image from small-web-dot-registry that would run a webserver that encapsulates the site one authored on small-web-dot-com.
This image could have some smarts to either punch the right holes through the the router's firewall or do something even more clever with a peer-to-peer mesh network.
At the end of the day, what one would have is a website of their own that they control within their residence. It would foster a lot of this small web spirit and be very cheap to bring to market and maintain.
This tracks with me until I consider the server/client rapport. As far as I can read into the author's intent, this dynamic does not change when someone hosts their own server.
If anything, the "dumb delivery mechanism" only became slightly more trustworthy?