Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 174 posts

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#81

Post by teleclimber »

tmikaeld wrote: post #28

I think that these points have to click before people move from FB: Simple -> Start the app and commicate (on all devices) Minimum features -> Feed, Chat, Groups, Events, Friends Fast -> No one will use a slow App Ownership -> All self-owned data can be removed from everywhere Decentralized -> And no one else can remove your data Privacy -> With simple sharing control So far, I've not seen anything that has all of th…

> Ownership -> All self-owned data can be removed from everywhere

> Decentralized -> And no one else can remove your data

How do you expect to be able to do that? Decentralization implies your are passing data to peers you do not control. They'll only remove data you ask them to if they are well behaved, but there is no guarantee of that.

It's like wanting to be able to delete emails that have already be sent,

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#82

Post by mesozoic »

osteele wrote: post #29

The post repeats the myth “There is no promise that a company can make to its users that outweighs the fiduciary duty that obligates them to maximize profits by any means. The only defense of this is legislation and consumer choice.” As a counterpoint, see, for example, [1], that quotes the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision[2]: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the ex…

Good point we shouldn't let Zuck et al use fiduciary as a scapegoat.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#83

Post by mesozoic »

crowbahr wrote: post #77
danielrhodes wrote: post #64

This article like so many others perpetuates this idea that Facebook and others are selling your data. You can more or less disprove they are doing this with a little critical thought. Facebook has a disincentive to sell data: if they sold user data, they no longer have exclusive control over it and somebody else can profit off their efforts in its collection. The value of Facebook is they have lots of eyeballs and t…

Except you're exactly wrong in that Facebook has been directly selling data while Google has not. Cambridge Analytica was crunching specific user data, not just buying aggregate targeted ads. That's what this whole uproar is about: they're allowing wholesale data access, not aggregated targets through their API. Google, whom you criticize, is the one actually only selling aggregates.

Are you sure they are not? We only knew for sure Facebook was once there was a whistle blower.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#84

Post by tscs37 »

snvzz wrote: post #38
tscs37 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it need to be signed and encrypted? We have PGP, Signal and Co. for that. Mastodon is a microblogging service, it's perfectly fine to not sign all messages (though ActivityPub does support signing) Mastodon is as trustworthy as your instance administrator, so you'll have to find a place where you can trust your admin.

>Why does it need to be signed and encrypted? We have PGP, Signal and Co. for that Note it IS signed. It's just not encrypted. It needs to be encrypted, too, because it's the reasonable expectation when private messages and followers-only messages exist. Additionally... should I be some location and post something, I'd be broadcasting my location, even if that isn't intended. All because it's not encrypted, where it…

>all messages are plaintext on the wire.

If you use TLS they aren't.

>should I be some location and post something, I'd be broadcasting my location, even if that isn't intended.

you broadcast it to your mastodon instance. In P2P you would actually be broadcasting your position to any network observer. In Federation only your instance knows.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#86

Post by coldtea »

osteele wrote: post #29

The post repeats the myth “There is no promise that a company can make to its users that outweighs the fiduciary duty that obligates them to maximize profits by any means. The only defense of this is legislation and consumer choice.” As a counterpoint, see, for example, [1], that quotes the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision[2]: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the ex…

>The post repeats the myth “There is no promise that a company can make to its users that outweighs the fiduciary duty that obligates them to maximize profits by any means. The only defense of this is legislation and consumer choice.”

That's only a myth in that it's not mandated. But it's still very much what almost every company will do, so it's a de facto (if not de jure) thing.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#87

Post by coldtea »

osteele wrote: post #49
Barrin92 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not be strictly true in a legal sense, but it hits close to the mark in the case of facebook et al. Their business is the elimination of privacy and selling off the data and attention of their users. It simply would not be a billion dollar business otherwise. Hobby Lobby or a car manufacturer might find a way to combine civic duties with corporate profits, social media will never be able to. Their entire bus…

A company gets to decide what business it's in (Facebook and Google have each explored several), what its ethics are, and how these ethics apply. For example, Google is in a substantially similar business, but it is interesting to contrast Facebook's pattern of behavior with Google's. Google isn't a paragon, and it's alarming (to me) that Google is building a universal panopticon too. But these two companies, despite…

>A company gets to decide what business it's in (Facebook and Google have each explored several), what its ethics are, and how these ethics apply.

Companies aren't individuals. They are aggregates, and (absence some major force, e.g. like Gates in MS or Jobs in Apple, or some important founding principles) aggregates tend to go to some mean, which in the case of companies includes profits above all.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#88

Post by coldtea »

Barrin92 wrote: post #59
danbruc wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they could just make users pay for the service, there is nothing that forces them to collect money from them via the indirect route of ads.

Obviously only my personal intuition but I'd wager there's not much of a business in a pay-to-play social network. My FB account is practically on hiatus already and I'd not pay for it. If there would be so much value in a privacy conscious, paid social network that is mass-consumer facing we'd probably have seen it by now.

>Obviously only my personal intuition but I'd wager there's not much of a business in a pay-to-play social network.

Then it's not much of a business, period.

In my ideal world, we'd only have businesses where the costs are open and direct (e.g. no "user is the product" or selling of personal data, or even "ad-based").

If they can't make it in this way, then, sorry, they don't have a business model.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#89

Post by dredmorbius »

panarky wrote: post #2

I see this form of argument a lot: Companies have an {obligation, fiduciary duty} to maximize value for shareholders, therefore they have no choice but to do horrible things to {users, customers, the environment, civic institutions} Presumably, decentralization, federation and open source will eliminate the profit-maximizing corporation, thereby stopping all the horrible things. The problem with this reasoning is tha…

What if every user was willing to pay $5 per month for a "clean Facebook"...

The problem is that, to a sufficient degree, they're not. Likely because the value proposition (or its assurance) is a hard sell. And that hard sell limits network scale (and hence, value).

Mind, even free alternatives have exceptional difficulty in competing with scale. Viz, G+.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#90

Post by danielrhodes »

crowbahr wrote: post #77
danielrhodes wrote: post #64

This article like so many others perpetuates this idea that Facebook and others are selling your data. You can more or less disprove they are doing this with a little critical thought. Facebook has a disincentive to sell data: if they sold user data, they no longer have exclusive control over it and somebody else can profit off their efforts in its collection. The value of Facebook is they have lots of eyeballs and t…

Except you're exactly wrong in that Facebook has been directly selling data while Google has not. Cambridge Analytica was crunching specific user data, not just buying aggregate targeted ads. That's what this whole uproar is about: they're allowing wholesale data access, not aggregated targets through their API. Google, whom you criticize, is the one actually only selling aggregates.

First, people gave away their own data and their friends data to apps. Facebook does not just give this data away to whomever can make an API request. It is also against Facebook’s terms of service to sell or misuse that data, and it is now obvious how naive Facebook was in thinking that this would be enough to contain apps from doing so. Nevertheless, I think Facebook’s intentions were in good faith in that they were hoping other apps and their users could benefit (in a non-monetary way) from having limited access to user data.

Second, Google grants just as much access to your data via API, if not more, than Facebook. Using Google’s APIs, you can grant full access and control to your email, calendar, contacts, etc. If you think companies aren’t currently abusing that in ways that make Cambridge Analytica look like children, you would be mistaken.

Post reply on HN