311–320 of 383 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being able to switch nodes pushes you to try and host your own instead. That's what I've done. IMO we should instead be looking at packaging a self-hosted version into a native Windows and Mac app. Run it in the background and everything's done.
That's basically the aim of Urbit. An instance you control that you can connect to other services to tie those external identities together.
That's roughly the level of paranoia I want now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you still access it though Google? They've bought DejaVú!
Yes, you can still access newsgroups through Google, just search for your favorite group, e.g. comp.lang.lisp.
This sounds like what I wanted from GNU Social when I first joined over a year ago. GNU Social/Mastodon is a fun idea, but it falls apart when you realise that you still don't own your content and it's functionally impossible to switch nodes like it advertised, along with federation being a giant mess. I tried to switch what server my account was on halfway through my GNU Social life, and you just can't; all your fol…
I mean, my view on the switching nodes thing is. It's not like you can just switch emails. Sure you can install a shim in there to forward everything, but there is no way to actually switch it. And that is the design GNU social uses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's different precisely because most social/cloud networks abstract away backups. Very few people have considered whether or not they should attempt to back up their Facebook account. Same's true for Flickr, Twitter, and Gmail.
Maybe they should?
Compare that to their experience at home with personal gear. Many like the convenience and reliability of Facebook over their own technical skills or efforts. You'd have to convince those people... a shitload of people... that they should start handling IT on their own. Also note that there's many good, smart, interesting, and so on people that simply don't do tech. Anyone filtering non-technical or procrastinating people in a service will be throwing out lots of folks whose company they might otherwise enjoy.
So, these kinds of issues are worth exploring when trying to build a better social network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter how you feel about it, take a look at people complaining when Google put a news article about Facebook at the top of the results instead of the Facebook login page: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/feb/11/face... These are people who typed "Facebook Login" into a Google search, clicked the first result without reading, and got confused. Now tell these same users that Comcast blocked…
Still not convinced. It doesn't need to be for everyone in the beginning. The early web (when I entered and before) wasn't for everyone. And thats OK for me. Actually I think it is a good way to start.
It got where it went by doing the opposite of what you're suggesting. The walled garden for smart elites were mostly working on OSI from what old timers tell me. The TCP/IP, SMTP, etc involved lots of hackers trying to avoid doing too much work. Much like the users you prefer to filter. Then, it just went from there getting bigger and bigger due to low barrier of entry. Tons of economic benefits and business models followed. Now we're talking to each other on it.
This sounds like what I wanted from GNU Social when I first joined over a year ago. GNU Social/Mastodon is a fun idea, but it falls apart when you realise that you still don't own your content and it's functionally impossible to switch nodes like it advertised, along with federation being a giant mess. I tried to switch what server my account was on halfway through my GNU Social life, and you just can't; all your fol…
it seems like this is trying to solve the same problem as ipfs https://ipfs.io/ It's pretty neat when you see two people/groups working on the same problem independently.