Here's a contrarian timeline: maybe the old web will return? My reasoning: when the "old web" was great, most people thought the internet was for nerds. Sure even casual users would forward funny emails to their friends, but when it came time for news most people would read the paper or watch the nightly broadcast. When they paid for their Big Mac they'd lay down cash. There were plenty of people using the internet, but again, they were nerds or nerd-adjacent. So, maybe the LLM-ification of everything could end up being like a huge filter, where all the non-nerds no longer see the point of anything and move on to gardens with even higher walls. And then what you have left will be a small subset of people who know how to reach their desired corners of the internet, just like before.
I haven't checked it out personally, but this is my impression of all of the webs that aren't the world wide web. Like the meshtastics, the new freenet, some web 3.0
It being harder to join has the effect of their being a smaller more engaged user base. Less likely that there will be pressure from corporate interests, more likely that every user has a vested interest in both production and consumption.
edit: And of course, you'll see the same in dedicated niche forms and spaces like HAM radio. I imagine the folks TXing EME have a particular flavor that is well maintained.
"Things used to be so good" is mostly rose-tinted glasses. Allow me to switch to asshole mode for a minute:
What exactly WAS the "old web" anyway?
100s of half-baked sites hosted on Geocities, Yahoo, about pointless stuff? Epilepsy simulator websites splattered with gif-vomit? Everyone and their grandmother asking you to install their 10 toolbars?
Honest, serious question: What actually was of objective substance on the old internet that's nowhere to be found now?
You can find random pointless stuff now too, just that except Geocities/Yahoo it's Intsagram/TikTok/Twitter etc.
If you mean self-hosted websites, they're still here, and nothing's stopped you from creating your own.
If you loved all the Flash toons on Newgrounds etc there's unironically a lot more shorts and animations on YouTube now, if you but search for them (I suggest Weebl, David Firth, Sechi, to start with, and let the algorithm soak up the weirdness)
Just as the "internet" supplanted newspapers, magazines, and broadcast television for many people,
and how the newspapers replaced the town criers before them,
why shouldn't the "internet" be supplanted by a more accessible medium?
There's so much crap on the "old" and "middle age" internet: ads, scams, anal mods, trolls, low-effort content, that could be bypassed by just asking AI about something and make better use of your limited mortal lifetime.
I think it is a case of, it is easier to find those niches nowadays but when you do it is a more shallow and controlled version of said thing.
On the old web, you would just stumble onto something deep but the barrier to get to it was fairly high. It could also just be total nonsense but at least you could see the passion behind it.
I agree with your general take. People talk about the old web as 'the good old days' but it really wasn't that great. I do have some fond memories of the mid 2000's when it was all starting to mature but also before corporate capture took hold. Even then, you would just end up stumbling around blindly most of the time.
The old web was local forum created by gamers for gamers who hosted real life events. You could post asking for super specific advice to your locale. It was eaten by reddit.
There were cool IRC servers for all sorts of niche projects and topics. This still exists of course but a lot of it was eaten by Discord or Slack.
While I never participated, sites like LiveJournal provided both a unique outlet and view into other people's lives. I think a lot of social media like Instagram and Facebook eat this up.
I'm sure everyone has their own versions. And this is the old web that was gobbled up by mega sites which aim to commericalise the crap out of everything.
Pre-Google, specifically, pre-PageRank, and even more specifically, pre-SEO.
Your post is oddly hyper-focused on pointing out the negatives, probably due to the asshole hat you put on. There were lots of good sites with tons of good, free information, and because the main way people searched was using directories, we weren't inundated with 1,000s of results on the same topic, vying for a top-placement. The writing itself was much more laid back because SEO-optimization didn't exist. Also, those "half-baked GeoCities sites" were awesome! Of course there were a lot of junk ones, but again, it was just a bunch of people writing about themselves, their interests, and generally being creative. And again, NO ONE WAS TRYING TO MAKE MONEY, they were just doing it. No "like and subscribe." No gaming an algorithm. I used to love finding guitar tabs on those sites and I had a couple of sites with lots of tabs I did on my own for two different bands.
> There's so much crap on the "old" and "middle age" internet: ads, scams, anal mods, trolls, low-effort content, that could be bypassed by just asking AI about something and make better use of your limited mortal lifetime.
I feel like this was GP's point, no? Because people are just using AI for search now (this is the main reason I use it) that there will be no point in making these spamming sites anymore, which "opens up" the internet a bit for those of us who enjoyed the old way. Yes, it's all still out there, but it's kind of hard to find, and it would be kinda neat if more people discovered making their websites outside of walled gardens.
I'd define it as the web until the time that Facebook truly took off and conquered the hearts and minds of so many (that was the first huge shot in the losing war of the old web). For example, a key part of the old web was what used to be called the "blogosphere", and the blog's height was those final years before FB (in the ascendancy) and the first years of the FB era (descendancy).
Yeah, I'd say "old web" is early '90s up through about mid-2000s or so. Geocities, Tripod, Angelfire, lots of standalone web forums, the early blogosphere, no social media, etc.
‘09-‘14 is hilariously not the “old web.” With that said, those of us who participated in what I consider the “old web” are likely “old” now, so… shrug?
Two of my favorite sites [0][1] still online—Lurkers Guide to Babylon 5 and ex-astris-scientia—were started in ‘92 and ‘98 respectively.
Yeah, I took a shortcut by just grabbing the copyright on page, but Lurker’s Guide to Babylon 5 has a slightly more storied history than being a www site. It started on Usenet before the pilot even aired iirc. I assume the ‘92 date encompasses the early content that evolved into the site it became.
With that said, its domain has changed a few times iirc… so maybe not the best example given the nature of the article.
I've just gotten used to this at this point. My first time on the web was somewhere around 1995 I think, although my first time on the Internet was earlier (it was a proxy through some ancient BBS and I'm pretty sure it was using gopher). Even though I was just a kid back then, clearly that makes me old now.
I'd consider the facebook and mega era to be relatively new, the "old web" for me would be the one without centralization around a few giants, the era of random phpbb forums, private websites with "this site is under construction" banners and internet directories to find stuff.
I remember the naive implication/expectation that a URL would be permanent. That once a file is identified by its URL, you could bookmark it and it would always be there. And absolute worst case, if someone really, really, really had to change a file's URL, they would politely return 301 Moved Permanently, and feel very bad about it.
Now people don't give a shit about URLs. Webmasters casually move files around all the time because they feel like it, and if links get broken, who cares, that's the referring site's problem! Their beautiful file hierarchy is more important than the web staying connected!
Yep, it's Murphy's law of online content. Anything you want to reference later will be gone, with no archive copies. Anything you want deleted will be available forever.
Interesting blog post comparing the culture and incentives of CEOs in different countries? Completely gone, tried to search it up multiple times to no avail. It's barely 3 years old.
That random 20 year old video of some middle schoolers doing a flying kick and breaking a vending machine? Yeah, just popped up on my feed yesterday.
It seemed reasonable, because keeping things up on the internet was becoming cheaper. We failed to see that capitalism would even demand payment for such trivial things.
The plot features two American men who stumble upon Brigadoon, a mysterious Scottish village that appears for only one day every 100 years; one man soon falls in love with a young woman from Brigadoon. The show's song "Almost Like Being in Love" subsequently became a standard.
Am I getting old? 09-14 is not even close to the old web for me. The old web, to me, was back when people still published physical 'phone' books for websites.
The old web doesn't necessarily mean the oldest web. 12-17 years ago was very much an older fairly different era of the web that's worth analyzing even if it's on the younger side of the old web. I can definitively sympathize with your reaction though, it doesn't feel like that era was that long ago yet.
I vaguely recall those, but they were more for normies trying to get online. For me the old web is what I saw when I logged into my university gopher server and saw the advertisement for something called the World Wide Web which I could browse via lynx. Soon enough I got a PPP connection and then Mosaic/Netscape 1.0. However everything after javascript shipped (let alone CSS) is new new new. I'd almost go as far as saying if it doesn't have a tilde in the URL it's not old web... almost...
Webpages dying is probably one of the biggest design flaws of the original web.
I am not saying old content needs to be preserved forever, but so much content has factually been lost over time. Old logs from text-based MUDs for instance, even for MUDs that still exist today.
It's the great irony of digital media. Copying data is accurate to the bit and is preserved "as-is", but in practice, it requires someone to maintain servers, to care about it. To separate out what is worth preserving.
We hot-linked to all those image hosts because we couldn't imagine them disappearing.
Archive.org had incredible foresight and if it didn't already exist, I'd call such a project a pipe dream.
Even Archive.org is rather limited in what it keeps. I know of a very large site that recently disappeared. archive only has part of the web html part of the site. Everything else is either gone or non accessible.
There needs to be some kind of "murphy's law" for this style of comment. "For any comment on the internet where someone points out an issue they've encountered with technology, there will inevitably be a reply from someone else sharing that they haven't personally experienced it."
...and I had fun replacing images people directly linked from my server with less-- ahem-- savory images.
I enjoyed the emails I got from a couple people who were adamant I "hacked" their site because their "web developer" linked to images on my server... images that now said stuff like "I'm a loser bandwidth thief!", etc. (I never did use really nasty "shock" images-- just taunting stuff.)
> It's the great irony of digital media. Copying data is accurate to the bit and is preserved "as-is", but in practice, it requires someone to maintain servers, to care about it. To separate out what is worth preserving.
This is a bit idealized. In practice copying data is not quite accurate (especially in bulk) and bit-rot is a very real phenomenon, both in flight and in storage.
You sometimes encounter it when dealing with files from the early '00s, it's very common to discover a few of them are corrupt, even if they've only ever been copied between harddrives.
Content-addressed storage and error correcting codes mean that one can make bitrot astronomically unlikely with honestly minimal infra investment.
It's copyright that causes anything to disappear from the web IMO -- torrents never die.
EDIT: I am aware that unseeded torrents do in fact die. But it really doesn't take much to seed a whole hard drive's worth of rarely requested data -- this also detects bitrot and so corrects errors automatically if you're not the only copy.
If you are, there's ECC, as well as making another copy.
There are mitigations in both software and hardware, but most consumer machines, by default, do almost none of that. No ECC RAM, no error correction in the filesystem.
There are many TinyMUD logs that were posted on Usenet, still to be found on Google Groups.
However, logging was controversial amongst mudders. It was almost always rude to log a private conversation without knowledge or consent; it was tacky to indiscriminately log while everyone was in the "hangout room" or Rec Room, as it were, and it was also bad form to post logs to Usenet or share them without redacting player names and other things.
But logging was built-in to most clients, and it was possible for server administrators to log (and hypothetically any malware-in-the-middle could log the cleartext, unencrypted TinyMUD TCP streams.) And many nefarious deeds by nasty players were exposed to the light when their logs were posted.
The technology is still in its infancy unfortunately, so there's no way the web could have been based on it, but I think content-addressing is the long-term play. If I click a link, there are some cases where I want the server to respond with a fresh response just for me (e.g. a website showing the weather). But often I just want whatever content was linked to (e.g. a webpage explaining a math content). In the latter case, it would be nice if the link had a hash of the content in it, and 3rd parties could host copies to keep the link working even if the original operator stopped existing.
> Webpages dying is probably one of the biggest design flaws of the original web.
Let me introduce you to the alternatives: print media, film, stone engravings. That stuff tends to get burned and shattered and it takes FOREVER to make copies.
I'm being cheeky but I don't know what design change you could possible make to the web to make webpages not die.
It's pretty difficult to avoid without very significant tradeoffs, though. The closest is content-addressable peer-to-peer networks, but these still rely on someone keeping the information around, and they struggle to scale anywhere near as much.
> Webpages dying is probably one of the biggest design flaws of the original web.
I'd say it's one of the biggest design flaws of the current web, what with more and more content hidden behind paywalls, increasingly restricted WAFs, and rendered client-side via convoluted JavaScript.
Archiving and mirroring of old-style websites, delivered as static HTML, is simple and straightforward. 20 years from now, most web content from ~1996 to ~2015 will still be accessible, but much of today's web content probably won't.
The blog mentions "0.mk's revenue did not cover hosting" but then goes on to implement expensive AI integration. Not counting cost for tokens to do the development.
Also:
> Reply to any 0.mk email and the message lands in a feedback queue the AI reads, triages, and acts on
Is this dangerous? What about jailbreaking AIs and having it delete everyone's account?
> The blog mentions "0.mk's revenue did not cover hosting" but then goes on to implement expensive AI integration.
The article doesn't seem to describe the cost of the AI solution. It does imply that it is lower than the cost of maintaining and supporting their service manually.
I found an old database backup of 0.mk on a disk I had kept.
0.mk started in 2009 as a passion project built by three of us. We worked on it for a few hours each week around our regular jobs. We eventually closed it in 2014 because the revenue (hint: no revenue) could not cover hosting, development, and the constant work of fighting spam and reviewing abuse.
The recovered historical corpus contains 657,607 links. For this analysis, we followed every one of them.
Of the 655,178 links with safe, crawlable targets, 76.7% no longer returned a loading page. After removing repeated destinations, 78.7% of the 492,620 distinct crawlable URLs still did not load. So duplicate links are not creating the result.
I use “did not load” rather than “gone” deliberately. Some URLs returned 403 or 429 and may have blocked the crawler. Pages that returned 2xx or 3xx count as loading even when they now lead to parked domains, login walls, or removed-content notices.
There is one large distortion in the yearly data. A single account created 83,398 URLs pointing to one hostname in 2011. At URL level, 92.5% of that year did not load. Count each hostname once and the result becomes 61.7%, almost identical to 2010 and 2012.
A few things I did not expect:
- 835 restored links point at Facebook’s old photo CDN. None loaded.
- The first link ever shortened was a CSS stylesheet on a WordPress blog.
- Someone shortened localhost on the second day.
- The longest stored URL is 38,753 characters and repeatedly says TRYING_THE_MAXIMUM_URL.
Most users came from one regional online community, so this is not a census of the whole web. It is a record of what that community shared between 2009 and 2014.
I brought 0.mk back to test whether AI can now handle enough development, spam filtering, abuse review, monitoring, and support to make the service sustainable where the original economics failed.
Happy to answer questions about the crawl, the old data, or the rebuild.
Old web was kind of dumb anyway. You can put on the rose tinted glasses and feel elite about browsing some shitty site 20 years ago or enjoy the fruits of modern design.
Here's a contrarian timeline: maybe the old web will return? My reasoning: when the "old web" was great, most people thought the internet was for nerds. Sure even casual users would forward funny emails to their friends, but when it came time for news most people would read the paper or watch the nightly broadcast. When they paid for their Big Mac they'd lay down cash. There were plenty of people using the internet, but again, they were nerds or nerd-adjacent. So, maybe the LLM-ification of everything could end up being like a huge filter, where all the non-nerds no longer see the point of anything and move on to gardens with even higher walls. And then what you have left will be a small subset of people who know how to reach their desired corners of the internet, just like before.
I haven't checked it out personally, but this is my impression of all of the webs that aren't the world wide web. Like the meshtastics, the new freenet, some web 3.0
It being harder to join has the effect of their being a smaller more engaged user base. Less likely that there will be pressure from corporate interests, more likely that every user has a vested interest in both production and consumption.
edit: And of course, you'll see the same in dedicated niche forms and spaces like HAM radio. I imagine the folks TXing EME have a particular flavor that is well maintained.
"Things used to be so good" is mostly rose-tinted glasses. Allow me to switch to asshole mode for a minute:
What exactly WAS the "old web" anyway?
100s of half-baked sites hosted on Geocities, Yahoo, about pointless stuff? Epilepsy simulator websites splattered with gif-vomit? Everyone and their grandmother asking you to install their 10 toolbars?
Honest, serious question: What actually was of objective substance on the old internet that's nowhere to be found now?
You can find random pointless stuff now too, just that except Geocities/Yahoo it's Intsagram/TikTok/Twitter etc.
If you mean self-hosted websites, they're still here, and nothing's stopped you from creating your own.
If you loved all the Flash toons on Newgrounds etc there's unironically a lot more shorts and animations on YouTube now, if you but search for them (I suggest Weebl, David Firth, Sechi, to start with, and let the algorithm soak up the weirdness)
Just as the "internet" supplanted newspapers, magazines, and broadcast television for many people,
and how the newspapers replaced the town criers before them,
why shouldn't the "internet" be supplanted by a more accessible medium?
There's so much crap on the "old" and "middle age" internet: ads, scams, anal mods, trolls, low-effort content, that could be bypassed by just asking AI about something and make better use of your limited mortal lifetime.
I think it is a case of, it is easier to find those niches nowadays but when you do it is a more shallow and controlled version of said thing.
On the old web, you would just stumble onto something deep but the barrier to get to it was fairly high. It could also just be total nonsense but at least you could see the passion behind it.
I agree with your general take. People talk about the old web as 'the good old days' but it really wasn't that great. I do have some fond memories of the mid 2000's when it was all starting to mature but also before corporate capture took hold. Even then, you would just end up stumbling around blindly most of the time.
For me that's not the old web.
The old web was local forum created by gamers for gamers who hosted real life events. You could post asking for super specific advice to your locale. It was eaten by reddit.
There were cool IRC servers for all sorts of niche projects and topics. This still exists of course but a lot of it was eaten by Discord or Slack.
While I never participated, sites like LiveJournal provided both a unique outlet and view into other people's lives. I think a lot of social media like Instagram and Facebook eat this up.
I'm sure everyone has their own versions. And this is the old web that was gobbled up by mega sites which aim to commericalise the crap out of everything.
Btw I consider HN part of the old web.
I loved Diaryland since it was fully customizable. It was my intro into templating! It was very crude, but it worked.
Oh my gosh I loved Diaryland, but I think they went through enshittification while they were still around anyway
> What exactly WAS the "old web" anyway?
Pre-Google, specifically, pre-PageRank, and even more specifically, pre-SEO.
Your post is oddly hyper-focused on pointing out the negatives, probably due to the asshole hat you put on. There were lots of good sites with tons of good, free information, and because the main way people searched was using directories, we weren't inundated with 1,000s of results on the same topic, vying for a top-placement. The writing itself was much more laid back because SEO-optimization didn't exist. Also, those "half-baked GeoCities sites" were awesome! Of course there were a lot of junk ones, but again, it was just a bunch of people writing about themselves, their interests, and generally being creative. And again, NO ONE WAS TRYING TO MAKE MONEY, they were just doing it. No "like and subscribe." No gaming an algorithm. I used to love finding guitar tabs on those sites and I had a couple of sites with lots of tabs I did on my own for two different bands.
> There's so much crap on the "old" and "middle age" internet: ads, scams, anal mods, trolls, low-effort content, that could be bypassed by just asking AI about something and make better use of your limited mortal lifetime.
I feel like this was GP's point, no? Because people are just using AI for search now (this is the main reason I use it) that there will be no point in making these spamming sites anymore, which "opens up" the internet a bit for those of us who enjoyed the old way. Yes, it's all still out there, but it's kind of hard to find, and it would be kinda neat if more people discovered making their websites outside of walled gardens.
I would posit that "old web" could be defined as the period before Google Search became public (<~1997).
But maybe that's more a measure of my own age and perceptions rather than an accurate representation of the various eras of the internet/web...
That’s the Cretaceous web. I miss it fondly.
Web Design Museum: Search Engines https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/exhibitions/search-engines-i...
Thanks for the link. In ‘96 I only had text-only/Lynx, so rarely/never got to see what the early versions looked like with a “real” browser.
I'd define it as the web until the time that Facebook truly took off and conquered the hearts and minds of so many (that was the first huge shot in the losing war of the old web). For example, a key part of the old web was what used to be called the "blogosphere", and the blog's height was those final years before FB (in the ascendancy) and the first years of the FB era (descendancy).
2009-2014? That's not the old web. Or I'm old. Take your pick.
Yeah, I'd say "old web" is early '90s up through about mid-2000s or so. Geocities, Tripod, Angelfire, lots of standalone web forums, the early blogosphere, no social media, etc.
Pre-social media is probably the watermark. That’s what sucked all the content out of the web and into walled-garden platforms.
I think there are a few eras. Pre-graphics, then pre-Google search, then pre-social media/public facebook.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/old-2
‘09-‘14 is hilariously not the “old web.” With that said, those of us who participated in what I consider the “old web” are likely “old” now, so… shrug?
Two of my favorite sites [0][1] still online—Lurkers Guide to Babylon 5 and ex-astris-scientia—were started in ‘92 and ‘98 respectively.
Elegant content for a more civilized age.
[0] http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/
[1] https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/
1992 would be super SUPER early for the web. Looks like it launched in 1994.
Yeah, I took a shortcut by just grabbing the copyright on page, but Lurker’s Guide to Babylon 5 has a slightly more storied history than being a www site. It started on Usenet before the pilot even aired iirc. I assume the ‘92 date encompasses the early content that evolved into the site it became.
With that said, its domain has changed a few times iirc… so maybe not the best example given the nature of the article.
I've just gotten used to this at this point. My first time on the web was somewhere around 1995 I think, although my first time on the Internet was earlier (it was a proxy through some ancient BBS and I'm pretty sure it was using gopher). Even though I was just a kid back then, clearly that makes me old now.
Speaking of gopher, I'm low-key hoping that becomes the new place for all the non-bot traffic. Gopher felt magical back in the pre-www days.
I’m old and it’s definitely not the old web. I consider the old web to be when PNGs were sliced with Fireworks and laid out in tables.
2009-2014 is Web 2.0, back when people still thought social media was a good idea.
> I consider the old web to be when PNGs were sliced with Fireworks and laid out in tables.
PNGs? We had (mostly static) GIFs and we liked them.
2003-2009ish was Web 2.0, part of it was CSS/web standards and AJAX and blogging becoming more mainstream
Old web was 88x31 buttons, 468x60 banners and tables
For me the old web is when people still had homepages. When those went away, the old web died.
Right? When I think of the old web I think of my Xena and X-Files fan sites on Geocities circa 1997
I was a few years late to the start (early 90s kid) but I am nostalgic for the vast amount of myfreewebs + dot.tk websites out there.
Hit counters on the front page was mandatory of course.
It was still a significantly different era than today. Let’s call it Middle Web. Maybe Late Middle Web.
+1 for this
I'd consider the facebook and mega era to be relatively new, the "old web" for me would be the one without centralization around a few giants, the era of random phpbb forums, private websites with "this site is under construction" banners and internet directories to find stuff.
God… I stood up so, so many phpBB instances.
When I think of "old web", I always think of "Britney Spears' Guide to Semiconductor Physics". Thankfully, it still lives:
https://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm
This is beautiful Thankyou
Remember the good ol' days when we all thought that everything on the web would exist for eternity and over.
I remember the naive implication/expectation that a URL would be permanent. That once a file is identified by its URL, you could bookmark it and it would always be there. And absolute worst case, if someone really, really, really had to change a file's URL, they would politely return 301 Moved Permanently, and feel very bad about it.
Now people don't give a shit about URLs. Webmasters casually move files around all the time because they feel like it, and if links get broken, who cares, that's the referring site's problem! Their beautiful file hierarchy is more important than the web staying connected!
"Webmasters" - now there's a term I haven't heard since 1998!
No, that's just embarrassing stuff. That stays on the web forever.
Yep, it's Murphy's law of online content. Anything you want to reference later will be gone, with no archive copies. Anything you want deleted will be available forever.
Interesting blog post comparing the culture and incentives of CEOs in different countries? Completely gone, tried to search it up multiple times to no avail. It's barely 3 years old.
That random 20 year old video of some middle schoolers doing a flying kick and breaking a vending machine? Yeah, just popped up on my feed yesterday.
Especially since the Internet is literally a _messaging_ protocol.
I mean, it does usually, just not always in its original location.
It seemed reasonable, because keeping things up on the internet was becoming cheaper. We failed to see that capitalism would even demand payment for such trivial things.
Quite ironic that a link shortener which went offline for a decade or so is now posting about other sites not staying online.
0.mk, you had one job…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadoon
It seems putting anything on the web that allows submit is screaming to get spammed these days. Is there any sort of spam filter that's worth using?
Am I getting old? 09-14 is not even close to the old web for me. The old web, to me, was back when people still published physical 'phone' books for websites.
Seriously. 2009 is several years after everyone was already saying “web 2.0”! That is nowhere near the “old web”.
The old web doesn't necessarily mean the oldest web. 12-17 years ago was very much an older fairly different era of the web that's worth analyzing even if it's on the younger side of the old web. I can definitively sympathize with your reaction though, it doesn't feel like that era was that long ago yet.
I vaguely recall those, but they were more for normies trying to get online. For me the old web is what I saw when I logged into my university gopher server and saw the advertisement for something called the World Wide Web which I could browse via lynx. Soon enough I got a PPP connection and then Mosaic/Netscape 1.0. However everything after javascript shipped (let alone CSS) is new new new. I'd almost go as far as saying if it doesn't have a tilde in the URL it's not old web... almost...
I’m vaguely remembering tilde username for our public html folders. Was that old Apache behavior?
And now I wonder if Apache is even still common. I spent so much time fiddling with apache configs.
That’s the prehistoric web or maybe that’s BBSs…
Fun experiment:
Have an LLM “guess” random URLs seeded with words from a dictionary, iterating over each word and guessing a URL.
It guesses a lot of correct URLs. This is one method of “URL hunting” that doesn’t involve a 3rd party list or index.
Then just scan those pages for other URLs, visit them, and add a tally every time you come across a URL (for page rank).
Then search anything, see what the results are. You have invented a dark web search engine.
Not enough links
Purevolume mention made me sad. I miss that community.
Webpages dying is probably one of the biggest design flaws of the original web.
I am not saying old content needs to be preserved forever, but so much content has factually been lost over time. Old logs from text-based MUDs for instance, even for MUDs that still exist today.
It's the great irony of digital media. Copying data is accurate to the bit and is preserved "as-is", but in practice, it requires someone to maintain servers, to care about it. To separate out what is worth preserving.
We hot-linked to all those image hosts because we couldn't imagine them disappearing.
Archive.org had incredible foresight and if it didn't already exist, I'd call such a project a pipe dream.
Even Archive.org is rather limited in what it keeps. I know of a very large site that recently disappeared. archive only has part of the web html part of the site. Everything else is either gone or non accessible.
That's not my experience
There needs to be some kind of "murphy's law" for this style of comment. "For any comment on the internet where someone points out an issue they've encountered with technology, there will inevitably be a reply from someone else sharing that they haven't personally experienced it."
> We hot-linked to all those image hosts because we couldn't imagine them disappearing.
No, we hot-linked all those image hosts because we didn't want to pay to host it ourselves.
...and I had fun replacing images people directly linked from my server with less-- ahem-- savory images.
I enjoyed the emails I got from a couple people who were adamant I "hacked" their site because their "web developer" linked to images on my server... images that now said stuff like "I'm a loser bandwidth thief!", etc. (I never did use really nasty "shock" images-- just taunting stuff.)
> It's the great irony of digital media. Copying data is accurate to the bit and is preserved "as-is", but in practice, it requires someone to maintain servers, to care about it. To separate out what is worth preserving.
This is a bit idealized. In practice copying data is not quite accurate (especially in bulk) and bit-rot is a very real phenomenon, both in flight and in storage.
You sometimes encounter it when dealing with files from the early '00s, it's very common to discover a few of them are corrupt, even if they've only ever been copied between harddrives.
Content-addressed storage and error correcting codes mean that one can make bitrot astronomically unlikely with honestly minimal infra investment.
It's copyright that causes anything to disappear from the web IMO -- torrents never die.
EDIT: I am aware that unseeded torrents do in fact die. But it really doesn't take much to seed a whole hard drive's worth of rarely requested data -- this also detects bitrot and so corrects errors automatically if you're not the only copy.
If you are, there's ECC, as well as making another copy.
There are mitigations in both software and hardware, but most consumer machines, by default, do almost none of that. No ECC RAM, no error correction in the filesystem.
Digital Data https://m.xkcd.com/1683/
There are many TinyMUD logs that were posted on Usenet, still to be found on Google Groups.
However, logging was controversial amongst mudders. It was almost always rude to log a private conversation without knowledge or consent; it was tacky to indiscriminately log while everyone was in the "hangout room" or Rec Room, as it were, and it was also bad form to post logs to Usenet or share them without redacting player names and other things.
But logging was built-in to most clients, and it was possible for server administrators to log (and hypothetically any malware-in-the-middle could log the cleartext, unencrypted TinyMUD TCP streams.) And many nefarious deeds by nasty players were exposed to the light when their logs were posted.
The technology is still in its infancy unfortunately, so there's no way the web could have been based on it, but I think content-addressing is the long-term play. If I click a link, there are some cases where I want the server to respond with a fresh response just for me (e.g. a website showing the weather). But often I just want whatever content was linked to (e.g. a webpage explaining a math content). In the latter case, it would be nice if the link had a hash of the content in it, and 3rd parties could host copies to keep the link working even if the original operator stopped existing.
That's pretty much how IPFS works.
> Webpages dying is probably one of the biggest design flaws of the original web.
Let me introduce you to the alternatives: print media, film, stone engravings. That stuff tends to get burned and shattered and it takes FOREVER to make copies.
I'm being cheeky but I don't know what design change you could possible make to the web to make webpages not die.
It's pretty difficult to avoid without very significant tradeoffs, though. The closest is content-addressable peer-to-peer networks, but these still rely on someone keeping the information around, and they struggle to scale anywhere near as much.
> Webpages dying is probably one of the biggest design flaws of the original web.
I'd say it's one of the biggest design flaws of the current web, what with more and more content hidden behind paywalls, increasingly restricted WAFs, and rendered client-side via convoluted JavaScript.
Archiving and mirroring of old-style websites, delivered as static HTML, is simple and straightforward. 20 years from now, most web content from ~1996 to ~2015 will still be accessible, but much of today's web content probably won't.
'URL shortening was a fucking awful idea'
[1] https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/URLTeam#cite_note-1 [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/683880/
Site got hugged? Is there a torrent?
"The old web" is 1993 to 2007. It's all been downhill ever since.
I was wondering what happened to the old web too
Wow, that is a great domain!
The blog mentions "0.mk's revenue did not cover hosting" but then goes on to implement expensive AI integration. Not counting cost for tokens to do the development.
Also:
> Reply to any 0.mk email and the message lands in a feedback queue the AI reads, triages, and acts on
Is this dangerous? What about jailbreaking AIs and having it delete everyone's account?
> The blog mentions "0.mk's revenue did not cover hosting" but then goes on to implement expensive AI integration.
The article doesn't seem to describe the cost of the AI solution. It does imply that it is lower than the cost of maintaining and supporting their service manually.
I found an old database backup of 0.mk on a disk I had kept.
0.mk started in 2009 as a passion project built by three of us. We worked on it for a few hours each week around our regular jobs. We eventually closed it in 2014 because the revenue (hint: no revenue) could not cover hosting, development, and the constant work of fighting spam and reviewing abuse.
The recovered historical corpus contains 657,607 links. For this analysis, we followed every one of them.
Of the 655,178 links with safe, crawlable targets, 76.7% no longer returned a loading page. After removing repeated destinations, 78.7% of the 492,620 distinct crawlable URLs still did not load. So duplicate links are not creating the result.
I use “did not load” rather than “gone” deliberately. Some URLs returned 403 or 429 and may have blocked the crawler. Pages that returned 2xx or 3xx count as loading even when they now lead to parked domains, login walls, or removed-content notices.
There is one large distortion in the yearly data. A single account created 83,398 URLs pointing to one hostname in 2011. At URL level, 92.5% of that year did not load. Count each hostname once and the result becomes 61.7%, almost identical to 2010 and 2012.
A few things I did not expect:
- 835 restored links point at Facebook’s old photo CDN. None loaded. - The first link ever shortened was a CSS stylesheet on a WordPress blog. - Someone shortened localhost on the second day. - The longest stored URL is 38,753 characters and repeatedly says TRYING_THE_MAXIMUM_URL.
Most users came from one regional online community, so this is not a census of the whole web. It is a record of what that community shared between 2009 and 2014.
I brought 0.mk back to test whether AI can now handle enough development, spam filtering, abuse review, monitoring, and support to make the service sustainable where the original economics failed.
Happy to answer questions about the crawl, the old data, or the rebuild.
How did you managed to obtain that domain? Usually single digit or letter domains are “reserved”.
.mk appears to allow for it: https://marnet.mk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/pravilnik-mk-mk...
“The name of the .mk domain consists of a minimum of 1 (one) and a maximum of 63 characters.”
ICANN might have set some rule for .com/.net/.org but it's not universal for all tlds
They’re not reserved, pretty easy to obtain if you have money, starting from less than $1k.
Old web was kind of dumb anyway. You can put on the rose tinted glasses and feel elite about browsing some shitty site 20 years ago or enjoy the fruits of modern design.
> or enjoy the fruits of modern design.
Like web pages that load slower with high speed fiber than the old web did on 56k and ISDN connections?
Bravo brat