Personal Small Technology are everyday tools for everyday people. They are not tools for startups or enterprises. Easy to use Personal technology are everyday things that people use to improve the quality of their lives. As such, in addition to being functional, secure, and reliable, they must be convenient, easy to use, and inclusive. If possible, we should aim to make them delightful. Related aspects: inclusive Non-colonial Small technology is made by humans for humans. They are not built by designers and developers for users. They are not built by Western companies for people in African countries. If our tools specifically target a certain demographic, we must ensure that our development teams reflect that demographic. If not, we must ensure people from a different demographic can take what we make and specialise it for their needs. Related aspects: share alike, non-commercial, interoperable Private by default A tool respects your privacy only if it is private by default. Privacy is not an option. You do not opt into it. Privacy is the right to choose what you keep to yourself and what you share with others. “Private” (i.e., for you alone) is the default state of small technologies. From there, you can always choose who else you want to share things with. Related aspects: zero knowledge, peer to peer Zero knowledge Zero-knowledge tools have no knowledge of your data. They may store your data, but the people who make or host the tools cannot access your data if they wanted to. Examples of zero-knowledge designs are end-to-end encrypted systems where only you hold the secret key, and peer-to-peer systems where the data never touches the devices of the app maker or service provider (including combinations of end-to-end encrypted and peer-to-peer systems). Related aspects: private by default, peer to peer Peer to peer Peer-to-peer systems enable people to connect directly with one and another without a person (or more likely a corporation or a government) in the middle. They are the opposite of client/server systems, which are centralised (the servers are the centres). On peer to peer systems, your data – and the algorithms used to analyze and make use of your data – stay in spaces that you own and control. You do not have to beg some corporation to not abuse your data because they don’t have it to begin with. Related aspects: zero knowledge, private by default Share alike Most people’s eyes cloud over when technology licenses are mentioned but they’re crucial to protecting your freedom. Small Technology is licensed under Copyleft licenses. Copyleft licenses stipulate that if you benefit from technology that has been put into the commons, you must share back (“share alike”) any improvements, changes, or additions you make. If you think about it, it’s only fair: if you take from the commons, you should give back to the commons. That’s how we cultivate a healthy commons. Related aspects: interoperable, non-colonial, non-commercial Interoperable Interoperable systems can talk to one another using well-established protocols. They’re the opposite of silos. Interoperability ensures that different groups can take a technology and evolve it in ways that fit their needs while still staying compatible with other tools that implement the same protocols. Interoperability, coupled with share alike licensing, helps us to distribute power more equally as rich corporations cannot “embrace and extend” commons technology, thereby creating new silos. Interoperability also means we don’t have to resort to colonialism in design: we can design for ourselves and support other groups who design for themselves while allowing all of us to communicate with each other within the same global network. Related aspects: share alike, non-colonial Non-commercial The primary purpose for Small Technology is not to make a profit but to increase human welfare. As such, they are built by not-for-profit organisations. Eventually, we hope that small technologies will be recognised for their contribution to the common good and therefore supported from the commons (e.g., from our taxes). In the interim, some methods for monetising Small Technology include: Charging for hosting and maintenance services Sales on App Stores (for native apps) Donations and patronage Grants and awards Equity-based / Venture Capital investment is incompatible with Small Technology as the success criterion is the sale of the organisation (either to a larger organisation or to the public at large via an IPO). Small Technology is not about startups (temporary companies designed to either fail fast or grow exponentially and get sold), it’s about stayups (sustainable organisations that contribute to the common good). Related aspects: non-colonial, share alike, interoperable Inclusive Being inclusive in technology is ensuring people have equal rights and access to the tools we build and the communities who build them, with a particular focus on including people from traditionally marginalised groups. Accessibility is the degree to which technology is usable by as many people as possible, especially disabled people Small Technology is inclusive and accessible. With inclusive design, we must be careful not to assume we know what’s best for others, despite us having differing needs. Doing so often results in colonial design, creating patronising and incorrect solutions.

Another interpretation of the “Small Web” concept is that it refers to the use of alternative protocols to the dominant HTTP(S), lightweight ones like the older Gopher and newer Gemini. For example, the blog post Introduction to Gemini describes these collectively as “the Small Internet”.

I’m quite interested in concepts of the “Small Web” and adjacent topics, but it is definitely true that “small web” itself is a vague term that different people use to talk about different kinds of projects. What unites all these different concepts is the kind of web they define themselves against; that kind of bloated, corporate, algorithm-ruled and ad-ridden mess that constitutes the majority of highly-trafficked websites these days.

A former FB executive and long-standing friend of Zuckerberg emailed him in 2012 (page 31) to say “The number one threat to Facebook is not another scaled social network, it is the fracturing of information / death by a thousand small vertical apps which are loosely integrated together.”