131–140 of 238 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The context for this is that it's Father's Day.
In the US. Offtopic: Even Canva, an Australian company that knows I'm in Australia, sent me a Father's Day related email. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father%27s_Day#Dates_around_th...
And a couple dozen other countries.
Why is it a problem exactly ? If something great appears on the web it will be shared, saved and discussed and not forgotten. If something is useless or bad, it will be lost when the server stops, and that's good right ?
Same happened with paper books the last 2000 years, great one were replicated, shared etc. others went lost.
Not every website has open useful data for the long term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Kahle gave a good talk at the end of day 1, where he pointed out that nobody quite knows what the end-user's interest is here. Are we talking about "open-source websites?"" To me the answer is obvious. Look at how the web is used now. Like it or not a high proportion of web activity is social. However, users of sites with a social focus recognise that there are drawbacks to the current arrangements, in that your u…
Ever thought about whether the assumption that having control over what your see on your Facebook feed might be incorrect? If we're talking about the ideal world that may be true, but the real world is far from perfect. If you ask 100 people do you want to live a meaningful life, probably 99 of them will say yes. But do they? Probably 1 out of those 100 will live a meaningful life. If you ask people do you want to be…
As I said before, content could be curated by apps. You could choose the apps that present the information in the way you like. The difference is, if a better app comes along you can switch to it without losing your past data because all the data would be application-agnostic, there's a greater degree of separation between the raw data and the presentation of that data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Kahle gave a good talk at the end of day 1, where he pointed out that nobody quite knows what the end-user's interest is here. Are we talking about "open-source websites?"" To me the answer is obvious. Look at how the web is used now. Like it or not a high proportion of web activity is social. However, users of sites with a social focus recognise that there are drawbacks to the current arrangements, in that your u…
Interestingly, Urbit seems to target squarelyat this space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Kahle gave a good talk at the end of day 1, where he pointed out that nobody quite knows what the end-user's interest is here. Are we talking about "open-source websites?"" To me the answer is obvious. Look at how the web is used now. Like it or not a high proportion of web activity is social. However, users of sites with a social focus recognise that there are drawbacks to the current arrangements, in that your u…
> home servers and decentralised identity. Home servers would need to be as close to zero configuration as possible, whilst still remaining secure. People aren't going to buy more black-box hardware they don't directly interact with. Consumers already struggle with routers. I agree with the core concept, but I think we'll need mobile servers instead of home servers... a simple "Internet" app that installs on anyone's…
Also, if the idea takes off, I'd expect to see the functionality being built-in to home routers. However, that's not necessary for the popularity of home servers to grow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Zooko threw cold water on everybody ("Is this just 1999 again?") I have all the respect in the world for people like Vint Cerf, but the fact that he mentioned "copyright" and "intellectual property" twice in his list of otherwise quite interesting proposals make me doubtful about "1999" ever making a come-back. (I personally view the 1999-2005 or so period as a "good" one for the Internet, all of the dreams of that…
Jaron Lanier has written about the hallowing out of the middle class due to intellectual and creative property being accepted as "free on the internet". As it stands the Googles of the world have private servers, patents and proprietary technology, ( and the money to protect themselves) but Google can scrape the creative resources of billions of individuals without paying them. In that regard a return to creative/int…
He's 100% right that hollowing out of the middle class is a serious problem for a free society. His prescriptions about IP are mostly nonsense.
Before posting something dismissive about this, please remember how easy it would have been to dismiss the internet and the web themselves as things that couldn't ever happen, nice visions but impossible in the real world, etc. etc. and so on. When the people who actually made these things talk about what needs making next, we should hear them with an open mind, not rush to think of objections.
It takes courage, a bit of craziness and strong will "to make things happen".
Whatever the solution is, I really believe data must be on user's devices, not on proprietary servers. Open source won the battle of software. The next battle will be about data itself. It surely implies very hard problems when it comes to standardization and how data is exchanged. It might involve something like flatbuffers. How data is exchanged, what rights you have on it, how it is made secure, there are no ubiqu…
Nobody wants their data on their own device. Nobody knows how their devices even work, let alone wants the responsibility of managing them. What they want is what they're (sorta, kinda) being given. My device takes my data and puts it somewhere where all my other devices know how to get it. I don't wanna know how it happens, I just want magic. We, who know how our devices work, and don't want anyone else managing our…
None of the big systems run by the big corporations are actually reliable long-term. They change stuff all the time, come and go, change terms, and generally mistreat everyone. So we just learn to be mostly passive and kinda just play the game. It's a weird and totally undemocratic form of extreme bureaucracy, and we have no idea how to do anything more than superficial.
So yeah, people don't want to take responsibility for all the data, but they do want the people responsible to actually be trustworthy, reliable, and serve the public interest. Is that just a complete fantasy, totally unrealistic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, people aren't like they were 20 years ago, they've been trained to give up their privacy for a few shinies.
People can trade for things. They want a service. They are OK with being cattle. Who are you to get mad? It's like when the US got mad that the Palestinians elected Hamas. They get to vote. Let them have their way.
"Let them have their way"‽ Well, by that measure what the heck business do you have telling the US not to get mad? Let them, the US, have their way in terms of getting mad. It's their right to get mad.
You're replying to someone complaining about people's bad decisions. Well, that poster wants to complain. Who are you to object to them complaining?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but what do you want? privacy or security? because you can't have both
Privacy is a form of security. This view of them as opposing forces only makes sense if you view "security" as only meaning the security of those in power against those they have power over. That's one type of security, and the security of your state isn't unimportant, but it's not the only kind and for those in the western world it's not even close to the most important.