[rwl]

I agree with most of this vision, think these values are important, and would love to see Mozilla realize them.

Given the values outlined here, I was sad to see that Mozilla doesn't seem to be looking much beyond the centralized platforms of today's commercial web. They see the "minimal barriers to entry for both users and publishers" as one of the key properties that makes the web such an important communication medium, and "Site-Building Ergonomics" is a top-level area where they see possibilities for improvement. Despite this, I don't see any recognition that it's still too difficult for ordinary users to publish their own information, which is why we have big commercial platforms where people do this, funded by ads, with all the problems that come along with that.

I think the most revolutionary thing Mozilla (and other browser makers) could do to realize this vision would be to turn their browser into a publishing platform. Browsers already have excellent tools for editing HTML, CSS, and JS built in, and they already speak the relevant protocols. Why not give every user a base URL for their personal site, and serve pages under it directly from the browser running on their computer? That would really lower the barrier to entry for users to become publishers and help realize the values of Openness and Agency.

Of course, such sites wouldn't be available 100% of the time, but they would probably be available enough to cover most of things people use the big platforms for: sharing text, photos and videos with their family and Internet friends. They would not need to be ad-supported and wouldn't raise the associated privacy issues. There are other problems to solve, but Mozilla is uniquely qualified to solve them.

The very first web browser had this feature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldWideWeb#Features And it seems the perfect way to realize much of this vision. Why not bring it back?

[lioeters]

> Why not give every user a base URL for their personal site, and serve pages under it directly from the browser running on their computer?

Your description reminds me of Beaker, the "peer-to-peer Web browser".

https://beakerbrowser.com/

I feel like Mozilla could do more to fund and otherwise support/promote such efforts for re-decentralizing the web, to bring the power balance back to the user.

[rwl]

Totally! Unfortunately, last I heard, Beaker was dead:

https://github.com/beakerbrowser/beaker/discussions/1944

https://atek.cloud/blog/hello-world

This is a great idea, but the big problem with Beaker is the network effects: only Beaker users can see other Beaker users' sites. To be successful, I think the idea needs to run over regular HTTP(S) so that other browsers can still access these personal sites. This means, at least at the beginning, that someone needs to run the infrastructure that maps stable URLs to a P2P connection to individual browsers. Mozilla is in a good position to do that.

[lkbm]

ICQ99 also added a feature like this, despite being an instant messenger, not a web browser.

I wonder if you could just write a Firefox extension that did this. It seems like the sort of thing that could be a viral sensation to get teens using your product--a new MySpace--but unlikely to have a transformative effect on the web.

[ianbicking]

Unfortunately I believe Mozilla lacks the willpower and constitution to host user content. Hosting user content is messy and operational and forces the host to engage with the user content itself, and Mozilla will never be able to bring itself to do that. I'm sure they'll try again like they have tried before, but half-heartedly and once they realize what's involved they'll shut down the next experiment too.

My only actual hope would be if they could partner with someone who didn't find user content so distasteful and was willing to put in the work. There have always been dreams that crypto could literally hide all the hard work that's required, but it's just a cop out.

[rwl]

But my whole point was that they wouldn't be hosting content. The users would be hosting it themselves, on their local computers, serving it via their browser. Mozilla would just have to provide a way to give users a stable base URL (linked maybe to Firefox accounts) that they could give to other people.

[ianbicking]

Ah... I see, but I don't think it will help that much.

Actually making it work requires proxies and other complexities to cover any reasonable number of users. Those hosted tools take on a lot of the liabilities of user content even if the content isn't directly served.

The limitations will be hard to explain, content disappearing when your computer goes to sleep, or when your browser restarts for an update, or your firewall rules update, etc.

It's also open to abuse without the user's consent, and so Mozilla could become the conduit for hackers, phishing, etc.

Like crypto, I think this is just a dodge. Shifting responsibility to users who don't understand the responsibility they are given isn't an answer. This is hard work.