I'm building a parallel internet, and it's called The Thinnernet

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope and Vision of “Thinnernet”

  • Not a new physical internet or low‑level protocol; positioned as a parallel, “bike‑lane” style virtual network on top of existing infrastructure.
  • Focus is on lightweight, predictable experiences for common tasks (news, mail, appointments, etc.), emphasizing latency bounds and efficiency.
  • Relies on existing tech (e.g., QUIC over UDP, QoS, “lite” app modes) and coordinated design across device, OS, ISP, and server.
  • Core idea: developers and platforms intentionally offer low‑data, fast modes as first‑class citizens.

Confusion and Skepticism

  • Several commenters say the proposal is unclear: Is it a protocol, a physical network, QoS regime, or just a design ethos?
  • Some note that metaphors about undersea cables and “parallel internet” blur, rather than clarify, scope.
  • Others think it boils down to “efficient websites and apps,” not a genuinely separate network.
  • Doubts about feasibility: coordination and discipline across ISPs, device makers, and app developers are seen as unlikely.

Web Bloat, Efficiency, and Business Models

  • Strong agreement that web bloat and slow sites (especially on poor connections) are real problems.
  • Many point to ads, tracking, analytics, and marketing as primary drivers of bloat, not inherent technical needs.
  • Suggested mitigations: adblocking, size‑limited site “clubs,” low‑bandwidth fallbacks, “basic web” modes, and voluntary developer guidelines.
  • Tension: some want aggressively small pages; others insist modern use cases (rich apps, 4K video) must remain possible.

Alternative Protocols and Minimalist Webs

  • Interest in text‑centric, anti‑commercial, browser‑light ecosystems: Gemini, Gopher, Hyphanet/Freenet, Reticulum, mesh/LORA experiments, Arcan‑net, BBS/SSH communities, SmolNet/Yesterweb.
  • Acknowledged issues: lack of content, poor discoverability, network‑effect disadvantages, and limited application scope.
  • Some see these spaces as welcome refuges from tracking and monetization, even if niche.

Design Philosophies and Governance

  • Pushback against framing ideas as “what a famous tech figure would have done”; viewed as cliché and a weak argument.
  • Debate over opinionated, vertically integrated design vs. design‑by‑committee and open, forkable ecosystems.
  • A referenced set of criteria for “HTML replacement” (open, neutral, powerful, easily monetized) is widely criticized as unrealistic, internally conflicting, or undesirable—especially the monetization focus.