The internet doesn't really tolerate serious technical barriers stopping someone from automatically multiplexing the content from various social networks into a single read-write stream, for example. The issue is that when someone attempts to do that kind of thing, they get sued and they end up owing BigTechCo millions of dollars. [0]

An open internet is _not_ a technical issue. It's a legal one.

[0] https://www.eff.org/cases/facebook-v-power-ventures

E-mail is pretty much the last bastion of the old open Internet, and the amount of resources needed to just deal with malicious e-mails is huge. Mindbogglingly huge. And those costs cut out a lot of organizations from being able to operate their own e-mail servers (either the costs of doing it or the costs of verifying to the big players that the e-mail you're sending isn't garbage).

And that's pretty much the story across the board. The old Internet was overwhelmed by bad actors who would ruin everything. Facebook and Twitter house a lot of awful stuff. But can you imagine how bad it would be if we were all still using USENET and IRC?

And, yes I agree, it would make the internet great again.

I wish it was popular instead of random set of forums, mailing lists and reddits.

Another way might be something similar to ad-blockers for web browsers.

   The walled gardens exist because the open Internet kind of sucks, really.

In my book, they're moderately worse. I entered the internet around the time of free web forums, where anyone could run one for any reason. I moderated a couple moderately sized ones, mostly oriented around computer games. Overall it wasn't too bad. Certainly nothing compared to what I've seen in larger communities. I suspect the larger the community, the worse the garbage.

But the main reason I say commercial players have made it worse is that they've also commercialized content moderation. Which is to say, they employ people to sit at a desk looking at the absolute worst humanity has to offer for 8 straight hours a day for barely better than minimum wage. That's like a job straight out of Black Mirror.

Forum moderation, by contrast, was/is a volunteer position. You were only in it for as long as you chose to be, and you could leave at any time without any effect on your livelihood.

So I'd argue the "community watch" model of amateur forum moderators was closer to the greater good than the commercial walled gardens.

Is this still true when “telling who's a ‘robot’” is such a common thing to have happen? For instance, I've heard of at least one major platform both sending back quite a lot of UI telemetry and considering third-party clients a violation of their ToS; I haven't heard of strong action being taken yet. (I'm avoiding naming them both because I'm operating partly on hearsay and because I'm more interested in the general question.) Hasn't bigtech had a lot of time and motivation to advance “how to detect people who are using some weird software to talk to us”?

Simpler forms of technical barriers, like with the AIM protocol, were defeated in the past, but it seems like massively upgraded data backchannels, machine learning algorithms, and the new normality of silent automatic updates all the time might strongly favor a centralized defender. Plus IIRC the CableCARD wars didn't go so great, and there were presumably a lot of people motivated to save money on expensive TV packages, whereas risking losing access to all your friends for having slightly better control over something that's notionally “free” anyway sounds like a harder sell.

I don't think it's easy to defeat “socially required tech” + “automatic updates” + “machine learning” at all.

If the legal barrier went away, and someone surmounted the "unserious" (which I doubt) technical barriers to doing that, then the content providers would go out of business. That's arguably a good thing, but I suspect many people would disagree. The problem is the profit motive and financing model for what consumers want, not the degree of decentralization. Google didn't screw up the internet; people did, by preferring what Google offers.

The internet as used by many, many people consists of a few centralized walled gardens. Walled gardens also exist because of network effects.

An open internet is _not_ a technical issue. It's a legal one.

Perhaps it's a social one as well.

There are so many abuse related issues on the web and I’ve seen no decentralized effort that works unfortunately. Cloudflare brought cost effective DDoS protection to the masses.

But that’s beyond the point that I originally wanted to make: spam and email have very similar parallels to security and the Internet. In another universe, it’s possible that the issue of spam and security could’ve been incorporated into the protocols themselves. But for some reason I’m sure is rational, those issues were moved outside, to the hosts — to be left to be solved with middleboxes as firewalls and Google’s spam filter.

I would argue that this was the smarter choice and that both of these involve the same problem: spam and security are ill-defined and constantly evolving.

I have tried FastMail and I like the company, but the spam filtering is not good. But good luck even trying to replicate FastMail anti-spam if you roll your entire email stack yourself. I have run my own email server even well before Gmail was popular and it was a nightmare, I'll never do it again. If a company asks me to do it, I'll quit.

Even if you put Gmail aside, email became reputation based, which is naturally going to mean the larger centralized platforms will succeed over a few independent outliers because they will always have a better reputation and control what is allowed to go out or in. Just like how the United States still has a large role in the internet and what is seen internationally because so much is still centralized within those borders, or the centralized companies that are within those borders control it.

It definitely is necessary to once set up proper DKIM, SPF, DMARC and TLS by default (thanks to Let's Encrypt), but after that the setup is pretty much hands-off.

Spamassassin filters my spam down to at most one mail a day, and that's usually because they have some new type of topic not caught by the previous bayesian filter.

I used Spamassassin back in the day and it was effective for a bit, and then pretty much all spammers figured out how to avoid it.

Also, I'm not talking about the obvious VIAGRA large caps spam, which I think is fairly easy to solve. But spam has become much more nuanced and Gmail is the best at it, and the false positive rate is still amazing.

Anybody who wants to advance the open web should focus his efforts on a P2P library with extremely good NAT traversal capabilities that is extremely reliable and simple to use and supports as many programming languages as possible - certainly not just C++ or C. It needs to be deployable under a permissive license on all major platforms macOS, Windows, Unix, Linux, iOS, Android, and browsers, and may not transport any data or chew away bandwidth without allowing total control over this by the programmer and end user. It needs to have a dead simple, almost idiot-proof API. The resulting network on top of IP needs to be searchable, not too high latency, and route to any endpoint on it.

That's still the biggest hurdle for the Open Web. Everything else is secondary.