I read an excellent response blog post by Khürt Williams titled The Indie Web Is Not Defined by Its Enemies. In the post, Mr. Williams eloquently makes the case for defining the indie web by what it is for instead of what it is against.

The indie web is stronger when it is defined by what it does: people owning their publishing, people controlling their data, people connecting through open standards and handcrafted links. That identity does not require a villain. It stands on its own.

Khürt Williams

This is a great starting point for the lower-case indie web. Encouraging people to build their own digital homes in which they can enjoy humane writing and media and even create their own is a good thing in and of itself, without needing a “big tech” or “corporate” antagonist. This is not to say that critiques of algorithms, so-called content creation and consumption culture, and formats that encourage bad content (see also my recent take on TikTok alternatives) are not warranted, but in promoting something better, one should start by making a positive case for the better thing. I plan to write an article covering some of Mr. Williams’ excellent points from my perspective in the near future, but I will conclude here with one additional problem inherent in defining independent websites or alternative social media in terms of their big tech or corporate counterparts. There is good writing on Substack, Automattic-hosted WordPress sites, and for-profit publications with paid staff. There are also good posters on X (although that is not the norm given the format). Similarly, that something is published on a small website or decentralized, algorithm-free social media does not make it humane (as in by human beings forr other human beings), much less interesting. A positive case for indie web concepts (both from the viewing and producing perspective) should also consider what is being viewed and produced.