If you could go back in time, what is the one thing you would change about computers or the internet?

In elaborate terms: you have the ability to change any one of the protocols, specifications, designs or standards of the above at their proposal stage or before their mass adoption. You may choose to modify or reject an existing one or create one by yourself.

Some users and I would have common ideas in mind, however I would love to see some esoteric ideas as well.

65 points · 98 comments · view on lemmy.world

98 Comments

j4k3@piefed.world · 45 pts · 204d

Full documentation and second sourcing of all hardware.

This restores the right of ownership and destroys the current dystopian nightmare world of lost citizenship and democracy. It is closely tied to google winning the right to digital slavery and the buying and selling of your digital person to exploit and manipulate you.

Sunsofold@lemmings.world · 25 pts · 203d (6 replies)

Regulatory: Ban advertising.

All of the worst elements of the internet are ad supported. There would be no downside.

oopsgodisdeadmybad@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 203d (1 reply)

I've said this for years, but not about technology. Just a complete worldwide ban.

Provide a yellow pages type of thing you can look up businesses in, companies can "advertise" on their entry, with a separate resource to look up information and data about them.

Throw in word of mouth, and that's it. Free market determines everything else. Also, no logos on any product. The products can't become the advertisement either.

But take this rule back to like the (19)00s, so we just head off radio and TV commercials before the get go.

Maybe this prevents capitalism from becoming what it is in the first place. The main thing is presenting objective facts alongside the ads, so people don't just buy something because "it said it was the best". (Maybe that could extend to preventing people from believing something because "it said it was true" as well >_>)

Sunsofold@lemmings.world · 2 pts · 202d

If only...

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 203d (3 replies)

You'd need to still have a whitelist, so putting the name of your store on the front of the store or telling a friend about a cool new thing you bought is allowed. But yes.

In a similar vein, letting websites render whatever they can imagine has proven ripe for abuse. Basic HTML is a kind of whitelist of it's own.

Sunsofold@lemmings.world · 1 pts · 202d (2 replies)

The best definition I have come up with so far is to ban 'Party A compensating party B via money, goods, or services for displaying and/or broadcasting media to party C, in particular and/or in general, without party C's specific consent and request.' The only exception might be to allow it for companies that both A. have an annualized revenue less than 10x the median wage, and B. are not making a profit. That would be just to allow small businesses to get the word out at the start but would cut off anything getting to the point where it should be self-sustaining.

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 202d (1 reply)

So you could advertise on your own platform as much as you want? Billboards, sign spinners, flyers, door-to-door sales.

It would kill surveillance capitalism as we know it, I guess, but it seems like if you're killing advertising you might as well go all the way.

The small business carveout is nice, though.

Sunsofold@lemmings.world · 1 pts · 202d

Sort of.

Billboards are not owned by stores. They are owned by marketers and rented to advertisers. An additional element may be needed to require 'own space' advertising to only advertise products and/or services available at that location. (i.e. within ~100meters)

Sign spinners are being paid to display their sign. They're gone.

Flyers are not delivered with explicit consent and request. They're gone.

Door-to-door is tougher to classify because it has variance in form, but probably would be allowed on the condition that the first thing the potential customer sees is a person requesting consent and not some piece of media.

Also, I think I'd have to simplify the start to 'issuing or accepting payment' rather than targeting a single party. Advertisers and marketers should both face punishment.

kbal@fedia.io · 16 pts · 204d (2 replies)

I'd like to know how things would've turned out if they hadn't made the decision to start allowing commercial traffic on the Internet.

okwhateverdude@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 204d (1 reply)

We would have never had all of the money blown on the infra that actually enabled the explosive growth after the dotcom bust. Probably would require a university account to access. And you'd probably be billed for all the bits

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 3 pts · 203d

It'd still get there, probably; technologies tend to arise over and over again. But much more slowly.

Maybe illegal, small-scale commercial activity would fill the space until they're forced to open it up. Maybe it would develop first in a non-Western nation with lax regulations.

JakoJakoJako13@piefed.social · 16 pts · 203d

Erase Facebook/most social media from the collective consciousness and go back to forums.

Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 204d (13 replies)

Stop IPv6 from existing.

Make IPv5, add a fifth number to the address, and improve NAT.

Not every particle in the universe needs a publicly routable address.

ambitiousslab@feddit.uk · 11 pts · 204d (2 replies)

That's interesting - I hadn't heard too much dissatisfaction with IPv6 before, except for the slow adoption, and the not-as-nice looking addresses. Is it an aesthetic preference or just that IPv6 is overkill? Or any other advantages to doing it the "IPv5" way?

Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 204d (1 reply)

This is a pretty good takedown of IPv6 but I think the biggest problem with its adoption is the addresses. They look like gobbledygook just so we can give everything a public address and it made it a lot more fiddly to configure.

Buelldozer@lemmy.today · 11 pts · 204d

just so we can give everything a public address

Giving everything a public address was the original intent! NAT didn't even exist prior to '94 and it was (and is) a massive kludge.

dotslashme@infosec.pub · 6 pts · 204d

Although not adopted, but ipv5 was mainly a proposal for streaming. https://itsfoss.com/what-happened-to-ipv5/

palordrolap@fedia.io · 5 pts · 204d (3 replies)

IPv5 existed. It was called the Internet Stream Protocol. The fact IPv4 used 4 octets was a happy coincidence more than anything, so v5 wouldn't necessarily imply a ninth chevron fifth octet.

But IPv4+, whatever that might have been, could have been an extensible system like, say, Unicode, and taken advantage of the unallocated/reserved 240.0.0.0/4 block to flag that the address is longer and the rest is encoded elsewhere in the packet.

I mean, if you want to go completely crazy, you could specify ~2^28 further octets with such a system... although requiring a 256+ megabyte MTU might be slightly too extreme.

Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 204d

They should make the next IP standard spin. Spinning is so much cooler than not spinning.

lime@feddit.nu · 2 pts · 203d (1 reply)

there was already a proposed thing called ipv4+, and it's completely insane. if you know anything about network infrastructure the entire chain is hilarious.

palordrolap@fedia.io · 2 pts · 203d

They weren't thinking big enough. They've only doubled the address space. I say this at least half seriously, well aware that mine is far more ridiculous the other way.

... but I probably should have tried searching for "IPv4+" before using it as a generic term. At least one other proposal shows up when I search for that, and one of them is a proposal that adds a couple more octets.

prex@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 203d

Upvoting, not because I necessarily agree but because its a good discussion.

lime@feddit.nu · 3 pts · 204d (3 replies)

oh god, the nightmare that "adding a fifth number" would be

Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 204d (2 replies)

It would be less of a nightmare than changing all our addresses to add four more sets, be alphanumeric, and to change the separator.

The design team flew too close to the sun with that.

lime@feddit.nu · 1 pts · 204d

it definitely would not.

Brkdncr@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 203d

That’s not how ip addressing works.

wesker@lemmy.sdf.org · 13 pts · 204d (6 replies)

I'd stop development of JavaScript.

chunes@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 204d (5 replies)

Now VBScript would have likely become the default for Internet Explorer and would have likely won out.

wesker@lemmy.sdf.org · 5 pts · 204d

Oh man, I had completely forgotten about VBScript.

qaz@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 203d (1 reply)

And Microsoft would be in control of the web

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 3 pts · 203d

I wonder if Gates would still go along the personality trajectory he's had if he was even more powerful.

bufalo1973@piefed.social · 1 pts · 203d (1 reply)

It could have been Python 🤷‍♂️ Imagine of Mosaic and Netscape had gone by that road.

chunes@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 203d

CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de · 11 pts · 204d

One? Tie between redoing CFAA, DMCA, and privacy regulations before they became problems.

scytale@piefed.zip · 10 pts · 204d (1 reply)

Make it so that security is a priority when developing a standard, protocol, or specification. Even at present, new stuff is developed for functionality first, with security coming in later. IMO they should be developed in tandem, secure by design.

Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 202d

Definitely. Insecure protocols linger on for ages even after we have better options. The internet used to run on unsecured HTTP, FTP, and Telnet, and it took decades for their encrypted successors to make headway and become the default.

I think email is the last major old protocol that's still blatantly terrible, but it's too deeply entrenched/too decentralized to do anything about.

supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz · 10 pts · 204d

I would make the default home router ip a human recognizable number like 123456 or something.

I would make it so complex software has an accessible console for commands and readouts/logs of previous commands like AutoCAD.

I would make it so mouse driven UIs were designed from the bottom up to be tightly integrate with command line views. This would make tutorials, learning and utilization of commands so much more efficient.

I also would make it so every UI element/window/toolbar of complex software had a specific ID number you could use to put into a search engine, search documentation or ask for help with.

okwhateverdude@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 204d (1 reply)

I think web 2.0 (ie. the internet after standards bodies had congealed around the browser stack of tech) would have been better off as a complete redesign. Sure we made SPAs work on top of the hodge-podge of shit that is HTML/CSS/JS, but at what cost? Before React and it's ilk, there were many attempts to bring desktop GUI-like toolkits to the web which imo was a superior paradigm. Now, a browser is basically a shitty VM with horrible abstractions for web applications. If only we'd stopped and rethought that. WASM was also a chance for that to happen, but 1.0 is so limited (can't challenge the browser too much! it makes google money!). And the fractured WASI nonsense that exists now means we'll never get to the point where it could replace it.

monogram@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 204d
[ removed ]
northernlights@lemmy.today · 10 pts · 204d

Nothing, i'd just buy all the GPUs and mine all the bitcoin.

But more seriously, if I had somehow the power to make hardware open, I would.

Brkdncr@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 203d

Prevent MS from forcing their docs xml standard on us all.

enchantedgoldapple@sopuli.xyz · 9 pts · 204d (12 replies)

I'll just go with introducing IPv6 from the very start

okwhateverdude@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 204d

I wonder what impact that would have had on early hardware because it would require more memory for the TCP stack

VivianRixia@piefed.social · 5 pts · 204d

That's good one, a world where NAT never has to exist.

TehBamski@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 204d (6 replies)

Can I get a ELI5 on why IPv6 is bad or not very good?

lime@feddit.nu · 4 pts · 204d (5 replies)

ipv4 is a 32-bit number, which means the total number of possible addresses are 2^32^ = 4 294 967 296, which is waaaaay less than the amount of computers we have today. ipv6 is a 128-bit number, so the total is 2^128^ = 340 282 366 920 938 463 463 374 607 431 768 211 456, which is more than all the grains of sand on earth.

the only thing i've heard people don't like about ipv6 is that the addresses are longer and have letters in them.

folekaule@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 204d (1 reply)

Minor correction: IPv6 uses 128bit addresses.

lime@feddit.nu · 1 pts · 204d

oops, yeah.

monogram@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 204d (1 reply)
[ removed ]
lime@feddit.nu · 2 pts · 204d

yeah the frames are different but that doesn't matter to 99.9% of people.

TehBamski@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 204d

Thank you for the reply. That clears things up for me.

leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 204d

This.

Everyone is directly connected to the network.

Everyone can host anything we want. No centralisation.

Trivial peer to peer.

A whole ecosystem of worms infesting every computer.

...

Wait, no, not that last one.

quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 204d

I tried a couple of times to understand how it works. I'm too dumb or my attention deficit is stronger than previously thought or all of the above.

EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 203d

Funny: you say IPv6 from the beginning. Another commenter says no IPv6 at all.

Snapz@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 203d

Hard to say, but we needed to leave a minimum level of a learning curve to using any computer, not a PHD required, but enough to bore the red hats. As soon as Apple's toddlerfication of smashing BIG, bright, colorful, soft shapes made it so everyone in the world could gold the history of humanity's knowledge in their pocket... They started confusing their pocket with their brains. Holding knowledge doesn't mean HAVING knowledge.

The instant and infinite false confidence that magic slab gives hateful idiots was our downfall as a species.

lime@feddit.nu · 8 pts · 204d (6 replies)

i'd have blocked steve jobs from visiting xerox PARC.

Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 204d (5 replies)

i’d have blocked steve jobs from visiting xerox PARC.

just fucking get any business major to fund Woz and call it a day. Or spike that prick's LSD before he can do any damage

lime@feddit.nu · 2 pts · 204d (4 replies)

no, see the important part is to get xerox to be a major player in the graphical minicomputer industry while it was still important, so that the world of guis would all be based on their paradigm with instant editability and deep interconnection.

Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 203d (3 replies)

So.... Kde?

lime@feddit.nu · 2 pts · 203d (2 replies)

weeeeell, ish. the big thing with the alto and the star was that the entire system was a live image that could be edited as it ran, and where every object was homogeneous enough to be put into any part of the system.

Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 203d (1 reply)

I guess at some point I need to watch the mother of all demos... and read the link you kindly shared

lime@feddit.nu · 2 pts · 203d

well that wasn't xerox but absolutely yes.

EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com · 7 pts · 203d

This one will be super controversial, but I'd say get rid of mobile internet. I think it was a huge turning point for society, and not in a good way.

It's tough because it actually does a lot of really good, useful things. But it also has a ton of negative effects. We seemed to do ok before it, and cell phones would still function as phones for calls and texting.

Xylight@feddit.online · 7 pts · 203d (5 replies)

Ban UDP. Illegalize the formation of UDP. I hate UDP. TCP is God's transport layer protocol. Everything successful uses TCP. Minecraft, best selling game in the world? Guess what, TCP. UDP fans will really send their packet into the void praying for a response that will never arrive, for their packet was completely ignored by the receiver and will never see the light of day again until a stupid 60 second timeout. I Refuse to use udp. DNS? tcp only. HTTP/3 is disabled everywhere, as QUIC is an unholy bastard born from the wrath of UDP and the comparably great TCP. Even my VPN over wire guard (mullvad) uses the UDP over TCP bridge so that I am not required to come into physical contact with the hell that is UDP. I hate the stupid uncancellable timeouts that every software waits a full minute for, even though I know the request has failed. Everything that has failed uses UDP.

ieGod@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 203d (2 replies)

UDP has uses beyond internet and PCs. The embedded world makes extensive use of it.

Xylight@feddit.online · 2 pts · 203d (1 reply)

God it's all hopeless. It's hopeless. I thought the "Reddit/Lemmy users can't detect satire" was mostly a joke but it's all too real

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 6 pts · 203d

/s was invented for a reason.

We're not dumb, it's just that the internet is so full of incredibly crazy takes nobody can tell.

Rooty@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 203d (1 reply)

UDP is for video streams and other applications where a couple of dropped packets do not matter. Triple handshakes are kinda pointless for these types of data transfers.

Xylight@feddit.online · 5 pts · 203d

Every packet is born equal. It is heresy how some people believe that some little packets, born with a certain task, are worth so little that we can just "drop" them. Imagine poor little Bobby packet #93736, on his school field trip, carrying a pixel of your stupid Microsoft teams meeting... but he gets lost in the crowd and left behind by the rest of the class.

Bobby Packet will never see his family again.

"Too much overhead", they said. "It's okay if we lose a few". Billions of little packets are lost daily, forever, all because UDPcels believe in file packet supremacy, and that Bobby Packet "didn't matter".

TCP is proof of a loving God. In a TCP world, the teacher would do a head count... and figure out that Bobby Tables had gone missing. He would shout RETRANSMISSION! He would search ceaselessly just to find Bobby Packet again. And he will.

Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 203d (1 reply)

The internet would be free, operated and maintained by the postal service.

QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 199d

And if the postal service was properly funded, and immune to partisan politics.

Agent641@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 203d

I'm not really that smart when it comes to protocols but I would go to Stanford University and guard the IT cabinet and tell Aaron Schwarz to stay the fuck out and go do something else.

AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 203d

IDK how I'd do it, but I'd absolutely try to find a way to ensure Amiga wins out compared to windows worldwide.

Either that, or, if legal, making a very vague patent/trademark/whatever on things like tracking pixels/cookies and implementing them on a dummy site for a "totally not a patent/trademark/whatever hold" type site to at least ensure privacy is at least a little better for the average person not using chrome, edge, Firefox, etcetera.

VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 203d (1 reply)

Forums and YouTube remain the main forms of social media. No Facebook or anything of the like.

QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 199d

Break up Youtube into a federated service, and your idea would be perfect. :)

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 3 pts · 203d

Here's an esoteric one: Kill the internet (as we know it) before it begins.

Okay, hear me out. Internetworking existed before HTTP and websites, and once the system of routing was there it was inevitable it would be used for all the things it is today. Email came first, and what is the Fediverse but an automated, abstracted-from-the-user email system?

With no HTTP, somebody comes up with the idea of an application that formats your mailing lists into one navigable page, and then somebody else starts caching mailing list emails at the server until requested by a user (like an instance). SMTP directly transitions into ActivityPub, and there's no need to build platforms overtop which can be monopolised. We might get to skip the Zuckerbergs and surveillance capitalism entirely.

DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 204d (1 reply)

Publish Piefed before Lemmy ever existed to minimize the tankie influence

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 203d

I'm pretty sure this part of Lemmy has already outgrown that part, though. Probably, "weird conspiracy people started Lemmy" will just be a fun history fact one day.

BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 204d (3 replies)

Making email free was a mistake. Makes sense to encourage early adoption but long term it's been a no-lose proposition for spammers, phishing, and general aggressive marketing.

krakenx@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 203d

I'd argue the opposite. We need more things to be free and standardized. There is no universal way to send a file, store a file, send a text or picture message for example. Email, with a basic design that's over 40 years old has had to fulfill all of that itself, and does so reasonable well, all things considered.

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 203d (1 reply)

They say, on a free email-like service.

TBF Lemmy might develop a spam problem yet, so that's a little unfair. It really has to be per-message microtransactions to make a difference, though.

BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 203d

That's what I was thinking. Just some minor amount to make senders do a cost benefit analysis.

JBPinkle@bookwyr.me · 2 pts · 203d

In the context of changing the course of things early on, I'd make everyone post under their real name in any context. To be clear, I DO NOT support that today. The cat's already out of the bag and pseudonymous communities are the norm now, I don't think we can unscramble that egg.

But if somehow, from day one, you needed to attach your own name to everything posted online, I feel like we'd have ended up with a less toxic internet than we have in many places today.

FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 203d (3 replies)

I'd make the internet automatically fact check everything

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 4 pts · 203d (2 replies)

How?

Like, it's hard enough for a group of humans to credibly do, because of the whole "who minds the minders" issue. The internet infrastructure itself couldn't even tell the town of Scunthorp from profanity very well, until recently with the advent of LLMs.

FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 203d (1 reply)

I haven't really thought through how

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 203d

Valid.

phdepressed@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 204d (2 replies)

No urls only the IP address and no hyperlinks.

Cookies and browser fingerprinting illegal.

Archival of all web pages. (Some exceptions such as takedown of CP or revenge porn).

chunes@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 204d (1 reply)

What's the point of no hyperlinks? Now you just copy-paste the address into your browser instead

phdepressed@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 203d

Just because lol

palordrolap@fedia.io · 1 pts · 204d (1 reply)

There's a hybrid BBC / Commodore 8-bit computer I'd like to have seen, for sure.

Buelldozer@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 204d

I'm interested in what you're thinking with this.

klymilark@herbicide.fallcounty.omg.lol · 1 pts · 202d

Gopher.

Or Gemini (protocol, not AI). No fancy rendering, you get plain text.

bufalo1973@piefed.social · 1 pts · 203d

European computer builders joining MSX and expanding it to 16 and 32 bits.

ICastFist@programming.dev · 1 pts · 202d

Hmmm, I got a few ideas, not necessarily to make a "better now".

One is for Unix's initial development to only begin in the mid 1980s, instead of the 1970s, which would hopefully result in some of its more obnoxious "features" not existing. rm -rf / - No asking for confirmation, because that will certainly not have any undesired consequences! The main downside is that we wouldn't have the Unix-Haters Handbook

Another is making RISC style CPUs the default for desktop computers, whether the originals by Acorn or even with Intel deciding to make their own ARM x86 series all the way back in the 80s. I'd pick this one.

jordanlund@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 204d (3 replies)

Make it harder. Remove the gui. Require UNIX knowledge. Command line only.

Keep the mouth breathers out.

okwhateverdude@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 204d (2 replies)

A very anti-"Eternal September" sentiment.

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 203d

This thread is mostly that, and then the one person like "127.0.0.1 is too tricky to remember".

jordanlund@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 204d

Think of all the AOL discs eliminated! 😉

FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 204d

Given the ability, I'd get rid of the Internet completely.