31–40 of 143 posts
I think that decentralized social network projects should relies on existing standards and help with their development. That's why I'm working on Movim (https://movim.eu/) for several years now, which is fully based on XMPP and is de facto compatible with many other clients and services out there.
Obviously, what people mean is some sort of "people don't want to learn how to manage the installation and configuration of a linux distribution on the command line". Which probably is true--but also completely irrelevant.
Arguably, home routers are servers. People routinely "operate" home routers. So, people routinely operate their own servers.
Yes, usability might need to be improved. But obviously, the first generations of new technological ideas are built by and for enthusiasts and thus require a bit more motivation to get started. There is absolutely no reason to think that that is therefore an inherent property of the idea itself.
Just in case any bright eyed hopeful person is reading this, please don't think "ah shucks" and go away. Some of the biggest things in the internet including the protocols the internet lives on were never envisioned as something that would change the life of billions of people. They were initially created to solve a problem for a small group and then grew into something much bigger over time. Please please don't back…
I'd like to add one remark to this: everything doesn't have to be huge. We don't have to deal always in millions and billions. Small groups. Even individuals. What they do is meaningful. What we do is not pointless just because it doesn't create some massive impact.
None of the reasons they give -- difficulty of user acquisition, conflict between security and convenience, curation, or economies of scale -- are fundamental obstacles to making a decentralized social network. Mastodon has found some success despite facing the same problems.
Mastodon is not successful, at all. Apparently content that was not accepted on twitter, such as lolicon, has found a new home on Mastodon. The average user would never bother to migrate to decentralized services for any other reason then necessity, lack of choice, or to escape rules/laws.
What short sighted click bait. Steem has already solved or partially solved most of these problems and we haven't even scratched the service. Read the Steem white paper [1] if you want your mind blown. [1] https://steem.io
It's decentralized but needs: - My Email Address - My Phone Number Not really the sort of decentralized I was hoping for..
I do not believe a blockchain will solve it. The core problem is that you need a network of trust. Currently, we have governments as trust masternodes via identity cards. Then there are secondary master nodes companies like Facebook, Google, Telekom, Vodafone, etc, where verification is easier and faster, but less reliable. How does a blockchain improve anything about it?
Here is the challenge: There is a kid born in rural Africa. How could you proof to someone with a smartphone in the US that this human being exists?
What short sighted click bait. Steem has already solved or partially solved most of these problems and we haven't even scratched the service. Read the Steem white paper [1] if you want your mind blown. [1] https://steem.io
What are the key reasons someone should go to Steem rather than to some existing social platform? Steem will likely be slower and the barriers to contribute will likely be higher. Secondly, do you think it is a good basis for building communities if everything is associated with monetary rewards? Sites like Reddit are exactly enjoyable because, most of the time, reward is only imaginary, just like in real-world gathe…
Whatever this might be, it's not theft. And it might just be something we have to accept if we don't want to live in a de-facto police state.
> Conversely, a lot of valuable content comes actually from reposting and "karma theft" (which is what linking e.g. a blog article from someone else actually is).
That's a fallacy, though pretty common. People who connect other people with stuff those other people want do provide a useful service, and being rewarded for a useful service is not obviously a bad idea, let alone some sort of "theft".
> Fourthly, how do you avoid fraud as for example often found on Kickstarter? Kickstarter actually has a review process and even they are not fully equipped for it. I am not seeing reliable moderation ever scale enough such that it can withstand the likely immense fraudulent interests due to the monetary incentives.
Just like everywhere else in life? You don't need a big brother managing every step you take in order to avoid fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's decentralized but needs: - My Email Address - My Phone Number Not really the sort of decentralized I was hoping for..
Identity is still a huge open problem. There are blockchain projects who promise to solve it (Civic is probably the most popular). I do not believe a blockchain will solve it. The core problem is that you need a network of trust. Currently, we have governments as trust masternodes via identity cards. Then there are secondary master nodes companies like Facebook, Google, Telekom, Vodafone, etc, where verification is e…
Better question: What would you even need that proof for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to add one remark to this: everything doesn't have to be huge. We don't have to deal always in millions and billions. Small groups. Even individuals. What they do is meaningful. What we do is not pointless just because it doesn't create some massive impact.
Except in a winner-takes-all market. (This is not about making money, but still needs a critical mass of users to become successful because of the network effect).