> If you are able to write an unhosted web app, then you will be one of the first people in the world to have done that.
Doesn't really inspire much faith in the idea.
Also, I'm a little tired of seeing this refrain:
> There is a limited number of big centralized websites, that we all connect to. This is not how the web was intended to be.
They are big and centralized because they did something well, and it's natural for users to flock to something that is good (or at least innovative). I don't see anything wrong with that. Should these big centralized websites turn evil, vote with your traffic. If you don't, then clearly the benefit you're getting from the evil website outweighs your desire to stop using it.
Also, if people don't vote with their traffic, that's because they're hooked. Immediate costs (switching) are always overestimated, and long term benefits (privacy) are always underestimated. Only perceived benefits and costs can influence a decision. People's perceptions are off, therefore they make bad decisions, therefore big companies own them.
Finally, if we had symmetrical, unfiltered broadband from the start, along with easy to use mail and web servers, then self hosting would have been ubiquitous by now. Gmail, Blogger, and YouTube wouldn't even exist (search engines still resist to decentralization, though). That is the way the entire internet (not only the web) intended to remain (not just be: back when it wasn't widespread, it was fully decentralized).
You are tired of seeing this refrain? I, am tired of seeing comments that assume it's false, without having the guts to state it clearly. Really, do you actually think the web was intended to be roughly a limited number of high traffic web site? Side question: do you think that's better than a more evenly distributed model? Or even good? Personally, I think it's unintended, worse, and bad. You know some of my arguments. I have another one: raw efficiency. A centralized web creates choke points in the network, and hurts peerage agreements. That is costly to ISPs, which then are tempted to relinquish Internet Neutrality to recover the loss. Carry out that trend to its ultimate conclusion, and the Internet as we know it will be replaced by an AOL-like network. Such a thing will still be called "internet", and it will still be IP based. But it would have lost it's most interesting property: letting the people write freely.
In fact, it's natural for users to flock around the dancing bunnies.
