Live data from Hacker News

A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

techcrunch.com

341–350 of 363 posts

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#341

It seems to me that one significant barrier is that most people don't have a static IP. If we can move to IPv6, will ISPs start issuing static IPs for everyone by default?

A static IP brings along privacy and tracking concerns when public facing servers/services are mixed with personal browsing and use. Even if ISPs are handing out IPv6 addresses, it would be better for people to get addresses that do change often or on demand.

You can't reasonably expect ISPs to provide anonymity; that would be like asking the Post Office to change your mailing address on demand.

It makes more sense for ISPs to focus on efficient delivery, while anonymity is handled by things like overlay networks.

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#342

A real barrier to a decentralised web is the difficulty of installing software on a server. I know that sounds really mundane and inconsequential in the broader debate about a decentralised web, but consider the following... Imagine if installing a server-side chat app, message board, project management app, or CMS were as easy as installing a desktop app. In a desktop app, it's usually one click to start the install…

Living billboard arrives to announce, drumroll please : sandstorm.io The auto updating server that you can self-host or use as a hosted service, allowing you to install and uninstall lots of applications, both free and proprietary, just by clicking the button. (No, not paid to tell this unless you count the stickers I got. And no, not perfect but still a refreshing change.)

Wow! Not heard of sandstorm before and seriously impressed!

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snapchat created a multi-billion dollar market via centralized tech and money taken in on the promise they'll monetize it (or the data under EULA) somehow while giving app away for free and operating in a pseudo-police state. I was hesitant to think anything good would come of that after the main SMS and Facebook alternative I pushed for mass audience, WhatApp, was acquired by Facebook in one of largest acquisitions…

There are perennial claims that consumers don't want privacy, yet Snapchat used the carrot of ephemeral messaging to gain a large initial audience at the expense of Facebook and other competitors. That data point of market demand for non-persistence is valuable, regardless of Snapchat's motivation or the consequences of their technical implementation. In the bigger picture, Snapchat can be viewed as Instagram v2, rat…

"There are perennial claims that consumers don't want privacy"

There's perennial evidence that consumers won't act toward privacy except outside of very, narrow constraints. You're analysis of Instagram to Snapchat is correct. Yet, with the carrot of ephemeral messaging, they went to a centralized service who could keep all their stuff to sell to whoever with no security or assurances in the whole process. Similar with WhatApp in terms of assurances. That's the best we're seeing. Whereas, the usable, truly-private apps that jump into any of these markets get virtually no adoption.

What you're seeing is the power of marketing rather than delivering privacy. Two very different things. Kind of like how many juices market themselves as healthy and natural while actually being a pile of sugar that might harm you if you consume enough. But people drink that 100% juice kool-aid. We've also seen where that went in the corporate space where virtually nothing is actually secure despite marketing claims and the fact that corporations try to hire people that can make an informed decision about that.

Definitely money to be made pressing that button of "ephemeral" on devices that couldn't be that if you tried. Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence for those of us pushing or developing actual offerings that are secure or private. I think more can be done and even maybe widespread but the evidence indicates market will always be dominated by scheming oligopolies of evil companies pretending to protect people with their offerings. Because people don't do better as users or buyers.

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#344

A real barrier to a decentralised web is the difficulty of installing software on a server. I know that sounds really mundane and inconsequential in the broader debate about a decentralised web, but consider the following... Imagine if installing a server-side chat app, message board, project management app, or CMS were as easy as installing a desktop app. In a desktop app, it's usually one click to start the install…

> Imagine if installing a server-side chat app, message board, project management app, or CMS were as easy as installing a desktop app.

Several NAS vendors already offer that, so you can install such server software on their devices with a single click and easy configuration.

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#345

So nobody can "give the power back" to anybody, but people can stop giving their power away to others. We all have power, and we manifest it through our actions and choices. Some say knowledge is power, but in order to gain knowledge you have to make that choice. One can try to educate people about the benefits of hosting their own data, but unless they make the choice to listen and understand it's all for nothing. I…

I expect eventually that with the rising tide of machine learning solutions being developed, someone will figure out that the chunky coarse-grained predictions and latency-filled transactions between user and server is monumentally inferior to a segmented approach which leaves the vast majority of user preference information on the clientside and which performs last-step filtering on the client device. No company can afford to throw the equivalent of a smartphone in processing power (plus what is necessary to make up for the latency) at each and every single users query, so purely server-side solutions will always be worse. Some day, someone will deploy a hybrid and it'll be faster and slicker than anything the companies desperately pimping their customers personal data can manage. And they'll sell it as a 99 cent app, not a subscription service or an indentured servitude "free" contract. And then, maybe things will change a little.

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tragedy of the commons situation. Even if you understand the downside of centralized systems (and most people really do not), you cannot individually do anything to stop them. So you use them out of convenience. "Decentralized" people are out of touch only to the degree that they believe that they can change the world based on collective altruism. That is an uphill battle. They are not out of touch in realizin…

People would change the way they use the web, not stop using it.

Reportedly teenagers, who are much more aware of networks' downsides by having grown up with them, are trying harder and harder to turn off or at least reduce their network footprint. See for example the rise of ephemeral services like Snapchat, 4chan, pastebin and so on.

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are perennial claims that consumers don't want privacy, yet Snapchat used the carrot of ephemeral messaging to gain a large initial audience at the expense of Facebook and other competitors. That data point of market demand for non-persistence is valuable, regardless of Snapchat's motivation or the consequences of their technical implementation. In the bigger picture, Snapchat can be viewed as Instagram v2, rat…

"There are perennial claims that consumers don't want privacy" There's perennial evidence that consumers won't act toward privacy except outside of very, narrow constraints. You're analysis of Instagram to Snapchat is correct. Yet, with the carrot of ephemeral messaging, they went to a centralized service who could keep all their stuff to sell to whoever with no security or assurances in the whole process. Similar wi…

No, it's not marketing. That's back to the condescending attitude again.

The people who use Snapchat have a threat model that includes the ordinary people around them: parents, friends, friends of friends, etc. It does not include governments or the provider of Snapchat itself. Given such a threat model it makes perfect sense to use something like Snapchat - it isn't the result of "marketing" (do services like Instagram and Snapchat advertise at all? I've never seen an advert for them).

The reason decentralised crypto-to-the-hilt products never succeed is they misunderstand the threat models ordinary users are using. Most people fear privacy violations by people who know them in some way - not remote faceless programmers an ocean away who, they figure, don't care about them at all.

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#348

In my experience, one of the largest hurdles decentralization faces is agent identity. Or simply put, how do you determine who is who on the network. The original Internet failed to address this problem. The successful solutions I have seen to this issue have employed centralization. SSL certificates from Verisign and login with Google Sign In so consumers can trust your website. Don't confuse this with distributed a…

Does this contact come back with the same public RSA key each time? Could they sign a small piece of data with the key? It probably [is/isn't] them, then. In Synchrony[1] this forms your address (like an email address but for editing web pages / chat / RTC teleconferencing / multi-user JS/WebAssembly applications), which contacts can then put a name to in the UI by mousing over. The address has the form network_name/…

Keypairs are not useful identities though. They don't encode any meaningful attributes (e.g. name) and it's too hard to manage them.

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#349
post #127

I went to the Decentralised Web conference in June. Fantastic venue, good talks, and lots of interesting people to talk with during the breaks. I blogged about the experience http://blog.markwatson.com/2016/06/action-items-after-attend... Until recently, I was trying to go 'all in' by favoring GNU Social over centralized social media, almost always running Linux on the laptop, etc. I have backed off somewhat, realizi…

Facebook and goog is build by armies of full time folks with average salaries of 150k. Competing with volunteers doesn't get you far. Even the rise of git was because of github. A for profit centralized company. May be the best case is to have open, decentralized protocols, with for profit companies providing hosting and simple signup. ICQ or XMPP, never quite took off like slack. Is it because of the interface?

According to same logic Facebook or Google would have never become what they became and we'd be living in a world of Altavista and Yahoo!

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#350
post #89

The nature of the net us to centralize and then decentralize, it's a cycle. See 90s AOL vs the open net as an example. At this point it's more about usability than it is about access. The open tools that are being built still have a ways to go towards fluid user on-boarding and compelling retention experiences.

There's very little evidence to support this claim. Some things were decentralized in the past, now most things are centralized. That does not establish a cycle.

The Internet has many centers and choke points, most of which gather in the U.S. The Internet needs country level network diversity and more stuff happening on the edge of networks instead of the center. Maciej Ceglowski explains it better than I:

The Internet With a Human Face: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWFo1VaQNmU

Post reply on HN