I want to believe
>>52355530
2spoopy4u
deepweb is only useful for or used by large companies, pedophiles and drug users.
>>52355530
>>52355530
>The Deep Web is estimated to be 500x the size of the Surface Web
>4% versus 96% of content
>96/4 = 24.
Wew lad
>>52355530
In what? Memes? The network formed by your pc and your pc is deepweb btw.
>>52355530
The tip of that iceberg is way more than 4% of the entire thing
>>52355586
*and your printer
>>52355571
Came here to post this. Also, darkweb includes corporate databases and such. There aren't enough users to build a darkweb that is even a hundredth the size of the traditional web.
>>52355530
>every device connected to the internet that doesnt have website services running could be classed as "part of the deep web" by this
>apparently i am contributing hundreds of gigabytes of content to the "dark web"
>implying implications
>>52355530
The deep Web is barely 1/12th in size of the real web
What would be necessary to create an alternative to the World Wide Web that more closely resembles what the web originally was?
By that I mean sharing and interlinking static documents with little to no interactivity. A sort of "liteweb" if you will that does not support scripting and has a vastly simpler (and thus faster and lighter) layout system.
Such a thing would be awesome for no-nonsense documentation and research papers as well as blogs and news.
>>52356230
Check out IPFS
>>52356305
Yeah I've looked at that, but it looks to cater to normal web browsers which fixes one half the equation but not the other. I want to be able to ditch shitty web engines like Blink and WebKit and Gecko for something 1/20th as heavy and complex as often as possible.
Ideally documents served over the liteweb wouldn't be renderable by web engines. I suppose this could be served up via IPFS.
>>52355570
ok now im kind of curious, anyone know what that site is called?
>>52356451
4chan you fucking cretin
Nice bait made me reply
