The future of the Web, which will not be

What will the web be like in the future? They write a lot about this - starting with new specifications on HTTP, which allow transferring data over the network faster and more securely, ending with the ideas of a “semantic” web . This is all great, the web needs fast networks and organized data, but there are problems that remain underestimated and unsolvable for now with the technologies used. Let's collect claims to the current implementation?

Information online is mortal.

Any service on the network can be closed, and all information accumulated by the service will be lost. Yes, some services (hello, Wikipedia!) Make it possible to download a full dump of your data, and the size of this dump is not large enough, but raising the mirror and restoring the service is still a difficult task. Not only for technical reasons, but also for material.
★ The more popular the service, the more money you need for hosting.
This is usually not a problem for the commercial development of a resource. More visitors - more money from advertising and other services. But to support the popular non-commercial international service, this can be a serious blow. Donat and crowdfunding can save major well-known services, but small ones still have to hang annoying ads to at least pay for hosting.
★ The Web is doomed to be commercial
It is difficult to say whether it is bad. Commercial service primarily follows the interest of the owner, not the community. All information on the service belongs to the owner, not the community. On the one hand, it allows us to develop the service more intensively and more directly, on the other hand, this means that if there is no money in the information, it will not develop. And the advantage will get competitors who have more money.
As we can see, if the service is closed, there will be a problem to reproduce it. But what are the risks of closing the service?

• Commercial risk (the project did not go for self-financing)
• Commercial censorship (content blocked by court decision on violation of property / intellectual rights / patents)
• Commercial self-censorship (some of the content is not beneficial to the owner of the service)
• Political censorship (the authorities do not like your point of view, which does not coincide with the official one)
• Public censorship (which community does not like your attitude to any religion, acceptance / rejection of sexual minorities, attitude to arms and means of self-defense)

Probably, the list can be continued (write in the comments, what other information threats do you see?), But obviously the risks are great. Eternal services do not exist now.

You do not own the created content

Content is entered into the network by millions, if not billions of people. These are articles, messages and comments in forums, videos, music and other files. Almost every user creates some kind of content - necessary or unnecessary.
But who owns this content? Anyone who can remove it - the owner of the site. All your files in the clouds do not belong to you, good uncle gives you the opportunity to store them there, but if the mood of the uncle or his financial capabilities change - everything can disappear. This would not seem news, but so far “they have blocked an account on the githabe” or “the cloud of ubuntuone has closed” or “orkut everything” is perceived as something unusual.
What happens when Wikipedia closes? After all, the good eyes of its owner will not always be able to bring so much money? And what will happen if Lurka closes? I will miss their content, and I imagine how offensive it will be to authors who have spent years creating, editing and maintaining content.

The network knows everything about you

A couple of years ago, I made a small service who-is-tracking-me, which allowed me to see what services the information about your visits on the Internet was transmitted through. More than 80% of sites have all possible analytics and advertising systems that can collect complete information about you. Log in to your social network page? Great, now known as yours, presumably your name. Left a pizza order? Know where you live or work. Turned on Yandex cards to get home without traffic jams? Now your route is known (by the way, did you notice that the number of your daily routes is not that great, and can you predict where you are going at a certain time?).
On the one hand, many will say “we have nothing to hide” and they will be right. My life is too simple and banal, so for someone such information provides value. On the other hand, all this information in aggregate for all users individually and in real-time is just a treasure for marketers. Also, this information is a treasure for agencies like the NSA, CIA, FSB for identifying “suspicious” citizens, whose point of view differs from the generally accepted one. I’m not talking about groups that commit any kind of unlawful physical actions, this should be stopped, but people should have freedom of information and freedom of thought. Now it all comes down to the ministry of truth with explicit or implicit censorship.
')

Output? Technically, there is

How do I see the future of the web? Each site is a web application. HTML / CSS / JS, static images + manifest, wrapped in a zip, signed by the key author of the site. And a distributed document-oriented database that will work in the background in the browser and provide data to the web application. On the interface, this may look like MongoDB, so we will use its terms. Each site has its own database, identified by the site guid. The structure of the site collection is fixed and signed by the site author. One of the collections should be an ACL, with a hierarchy of rights. All content-generating users will be listed in this collection. Each document in the database must be signed by the author of the document.
Obviously, such a database should not trust anyone from its neighbors, because all the logic for checking the rights to records should be registered in the database itself. The document came, we check that the id of the user who signed the document is in the ACL, and he has the necessary rights. To ensure greater user independence, each user should automatically generate an id and key when entering a new site.
One of the difficult problems is the versioning of documents and their consistency. It is possible that two users will see different information at the same time. But for such a system, I consider normal consistency “sometime”, meaning that the system will try to synchronize data and there will be a point in time when these data will coincide with two randomly taken users of the system. Obviously, such an approach is unacceptable, for example, when ordering tickets, but action systems for which synchronism is important, should be connected as restful services. Content that survives a full update after some time and action services should be separated.
For large documents, video, audio or other large documents, it is advisable not to use gridfs in a distributed database, but to use magnet links. In the business rules for the collection of content uploaded by users, you need to specify a limit on the size of the document (for example, a user's avatar). Torrent is a good transport layer for transferring files.
Obsolescence data. Data will be saved as long as at least one user is interested in them. After the last “Sid” disappears, the data perish. They can be resurrected if such a seed is returned. Obviously, the data in the database can grow and swell without measure. A good tool in my opinion is the principle of “phoenix”. Since all data is publicly available (including both database data and frontend), at some point a squeeze of actual data is made and users switch to a new version of the site. Those who wish may remain on the old version, but when the last one stops using it, it will disappear. Also, any user can fork a site with its data. This is the second side of complete information freedom.
The description, of course incomplete, many nuances still need to be taken into account, but so far I don’t see any unsolvable problems. I will be glad to hear your opinion about the problems that you see in this implementation.

Technically, there is a solution, you can create a system that will solve all the above problems. But the problem is that no one needs such a system. For the most part, everyone is happy with everything. In society, there is no rigorous demand for solving problems above, and the new system will interfere with government and business. Therefore, this is the future of the Web, which most likely will not. I had the idea to deploy a crowdfunding company to create such a system, it would be possible to meet the 5-10 million, but is it necessary for the society?