I like the ideas the site proposes in principle (a lighter, more efficient tech/internet); however, I am not sure I agree with some of the solutions, such as returning to typewriters and paper-based solutions in a general office environment. Also, I am not sure image dithering lightens a website enough. (Full disclosure: I do like the aesthetic of the site itself.)
Instead of typewriters and paper, I would say that more cli-based and tui-based solutions would be more energy efficient. As well as replacing most monitors with e-ink displays for these solutions. I do agree with the deployment of minimal, static websites. However, instead of image dithering, focus on image formats optimized for the web (such as webp). Also, include images only when helpful or relevant; not just plastering a site with stock photos. I would contend that the images and videos included on most webpages are irrelevant, anyway.
The problem here is not me and you and our websites; its corporate websites (retail, news, social media.). With all of the tracking, javascript, inline ads, popup ads, video ads, spam emails, etc that they deploy, the web has become bloated. They deploy whatever they can to get us to click. Until we, as content consumers, actively choose to avoid these sites, their behavior will never change.
I agree - - eink is an excellent middle ground for a lot of purposes, and has its own advantages (better for focusing, less eye strain, reduced artificial light at night). The downside it is another device that needs to be manufactured.
Typewriters as a solution is feels like pursuing an aesthetic of low tech while ignoring why we don’t typically use those.
Also any solution that results in less opportunity to reduce commuting (remote work) is a nonstarter - it is focusing on the internet’s energy consumption in isolation rather than recognizing the energy consumption that it is replacing.
Add comment