My indieweb Definition

[tundradragon]

This all started with Shellsharks sharing thoughts on what the "human web" is. This then led to Brennan Day attempting to redefine the indie web based on a separate set of principles. Both articles are really good and absolutely worth reading, nor can I say that either them are wrong (or right!) in their posts.

But they did get me thinking... How do I want to see "indie web" and the like defined?

After seeing so many different ways people have used indieweb, smallweb, ect. I think I have come to a conclusion.

And that conclusion is we are over-thinking this and providing too narrow of definitions.

The fact that "indieweb/smallweb/etc." (henceforth just "indieweb") has no solid meaning across groups of people means it is not currently all that useful as a term. Everyone will end up reading and interpreting it differently when it's used to describe a site or community or whatever. And so many definitions I come across ultimately end up excluding sites that also describe themselves as indie. But of course, there must be something that makes the indieweb the indieweb when compared to stuff like YouTube and Facebook.

To me, what counts as indieweb is very simple and very broad: a web independent from capitalistic interests, based on personal websites, reference sites, and small project sites (and similar sites that I'm probably failing to think of!). A web independent from shareholders, sensational algorithms, surveillance, etc. That's all. If you host your website with a service like Neocities, cool! You're indie. Use a VPS? Fully self host? Just as indie! Hand code every last bit? Use a static site generator? Or a content management system? All indie, and all fair ways to make a site. Use traditional HTTPS? Use Gopher or Gemini protocol instead? All equally indie. The indieweb simply exists as a opposite (but not nessisarily the only opposite) to the corporate web.

As Brennan mentioned, there will always be dependencies. We will always be reliant on registrars for our domains. Some VPSs are more corporate than others. So on and so forth. But getting away from the corporate web itself does so much for people that I think making that the core of it is plenty enough.

And the only reason I specify "based on personal websites, reference sites, small project sites, etc." is because, while generally opposite to the corporate web (if managed properly), forums and fediverse are more social focused and thus not indie in my opinion.

Of course, these are all just my thoughts. I recognize my definition is fairly broad and the one exception fairly arbitrary. I think this is something the indie web is still trying to figure out, so I'd be very curious what everyone else thinks!

Cross-posted to my main site.

Comments

[osteophage]

From the examples you gave, it sounds like you're contrasting social and indie against each other. Most likely I wouldn't think to name the Fediverse as part of the indie web either, but I do think of the 32-Bit Cafe forum that way, more or less. Can you say more about your thinking on that?

[tundradragon]

That is a really good point. I think to me what makes fediverse diffrent from 32bit's forums (and most webforums in general) is a mix of vibe and scale.

32bit's forums are fairly small, and you feel like you kmow most people. Even if it's just a "I've seen that face before" type of knowing. Like being in a small town. Everyone there is also there for one thing, ultimantly: to talk about the indie web. Some may also want help with their sites, some may also want to share their sites, but there's a unifying theme.

While fedi avoids many pitfalls of larger social media, it still feels like a "big city". You don't know anyone, really, outside of a small circle you currate. And everyone is there for vastly diffrent reasons. This has its own benefits and place in the world, of course, but I think that's what stops it from "feeling" indie.

[osteophage]

I suppose that makes sense, what you're saying there about scale. The Fediverse technically includes many small sites, but it seems that many of them are designed and structured and spoken about in such a way as to make the network feel more structurally homogeneous, for better or for worse.

Anyway, with what you were saying before about contrasting indie against corporate, I couldn't help but think of the exchange I had last month re: defining the indie web by its enemies.

[tundradragon]

!!! Yes! I heard someone mention something akin to this when I shared my post with the 32Bit Cafe server—that it should be corprate web that is defined and seperated off and "indie web" simply becomes "the web".

[osteophage]

That would be nice, but in order for that to be recognizable in common parlance, we'd need a very different digital landscape. Did you read what I wrote at the link?

[tundradragon]

That it would be. And yes, I did! Have not yet had the time to look at any of the articles you've linked to there, unfortunantly. "Favoring small sites over corporate exploitation", "a web independent from capitalistic interests" and "define corprate web and seperate everything else off from it" all hit similar points and desires to me, personally, hense the recognition. Indie web is a way for people to get away from giant sites with monetary desires and questionable means of getting said funds, which is why I find any extra requirements to be indie to be largely uneeded... But I'm just repeating myself now. Shouldn't be typing when sleepy lol.