drmoose

I think you're low key conflating 2 different issues here.

When it comes to technology of fiber vs low orbit satellites fiber will always win in every circumstance that isn't a battle field or an ocean. It's one of those technologies that we really nailed. Combined with cell towers we can tap ourselves on the back and say "yay we solved internet" very convincingly.

There's literally nothing in current practical physics that can match this latency and bandwidth and cost ration. Just try to do napkin math of how many low orbit satellites we'd need to cover today's bandwidth and latency requirements and we will literally never need less than what we need today unless the world ends.

Now whether corruption has a role here sure - but you sure your trusting SpaceX more when its literally on the news right now for bait and switching the pause feature. There's no basis of thinking that Starlink would somehow be less corrupt. In fact, it seems like hiding corruption here would be much easier for starlink with feature changes and priority lanes than literal "cable is here or cable is not here".

There are thousands of alternatives to github pages that will host your content for free. Taking your static website to a different host literally takes 5 minutes. At the scale of Github or Netlify your 1gb/mo bandwidth blog website is a rounding error and well worth the potential conversion price. The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

You can "disagree" all you want but reality is that information hosting made huge gains in the past 20 years to the point where the only cost to share a blog these days is the domain name. Even if you don't want to feed the "free corporate machines" then you can easily host it for 5$/mo and if you can't afford that I don't know what to tell you.

Literally free. So many tech illiterate people in this threat that still think website hosting costs money.

This is absolute insanity. To think that fiber and satellites are even on the same playing field is absolute brain damage.

I fundamentally disagree with all of your claims. The web was already ruined by SEO farms and I know that cause I worked in organic growth for years, AI is not making this worse.

The traffic argument is non-sensical in 2025. serving 200kb html file costs literally nothing. So if you want to write and share something you can do it without spending a single penny, ever.

I understand the frustration and confusion here but all of this whining is lacking any real vision. Information should be free and accessible to all and the rest can be solved without changing this core principle.

So while you "protect" what you share we all will continue to grow and share information freely and actualy contribute real change not start breaking the looms.

overloading from 200kb of html? We're not in dialup era anymore

As someone who's been on the web since the 90s I hate this.

The web was designed to be user agent agnostic. Desktop, phone, fridge, ai agents, curl, python script - whatever agent you are using shouldn't matter for access. That's the whole point of open internet, period.