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

Towards a world without Facebook

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 164 posts

Re: Towards a world without Facebook

#151

Post by km3k »

vlunkr wrote: post #126
kromem wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can absolutely delete. You just append data that represents a delete, and the client doesn't show that item or shows it as deleted. Yes, it doesn't remove that data from the chain and a client could easily end up undoing deletes, but if you think that server based deletes actually remove the data, you might be in for an unpleasant surprise depending on the servers in question.

In the case of social media, this isnt enough. Certainly someone will create a client that shows you everything that’s been deleted. Can you imagine if you had used social media since you were a pre-teen and every bit of it was public record? I’m sure no one would use that service.

But that's how it works. You should assume everything you've ever posted to another server could someday become public record. Especially with social media since it's being posted specifically to be viewed by others who may copy and redistribute that data at any time.

People redistribute snaps all the time even though they're supposed to "go away", yet people still use it.

Re: Towards a world without Facebook

#152

Post by laythea »

vlunkr wrote: post #126
kromem wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can absolutely delete. You just append data that represents a delete, and the client doesn't show that item or shows it as deleted. Yes, it doesn't remove that data from the chain and a client could easily end up undoing deletes, but if you think that server based deletes actually remove the data, you might be in for an unpleasant surprise depending on the servers in question.

In the case of social media, this isnt enough. Certainly someone will create a client that shows you everything that’s been deleted. Can you imagine if you had used social media since you were a pre-teen and every bit of it was public record? I’m sure no one would use that service.

To the parents: the solution is to not allow pre-teen social media. In my opinion.

Re: Towards a world without Facebook

#153

Post by jasonkostempski »

stordoff wrote: post #121
jasonkostempski wrote: post #32

"wherein users own their own data, encrypted by them, stored in the location of their choice, shared only as and when they explicitly approve" I'm probably a little late to the party but I just now realized this is exactly DRM for the individual. I don't want anything with DRM and I don't want to impose DRM on anyone else. I dont see how one could be against DRM and for this.

The implementation may be similar, and arguably the term DRM could apply, but I imagine that a key difference is that DRM (in general) controls how a content recipient can use the content (e.g. I can't modify it, or I'm limited in what programs can open the file). Here, the goal is (presumably) to control who receives access to the content, but not imposing restrictions on people who do receive it.

What about reposts, especially to platforms that don't play the game? The only thing that will stop your naive friend, who thinks your slightly off-color remark about the hot-topic of the week is pure gold, from reposting will be potential threats of legal repercussions if they do (some kind of DMCA amongst friends). Who the hell wants that?

We're either asking for the same thing media companies have been seeking for decades, perfect DRM (billions of dollars haven't found that solutions yet), or we're admitting that none of this works unless everyone you share things with, and the people they share your thing with, completely agree with you about who should see the thing you just shared with them, and know how to prevent software from automatically doing it, perfect trust (most can't even keep their contact lists from leaking). I don't see either happening, ever.

The goal here is to prevent powerful groups from building a profile so they can target ads/guns at you when they decide they want your money/life whenever they decide they deserve it. The only ways I can think of to do that are post anonymously, hope not to get doxed; or STFU and stop broadcasting your life. You can make laws that might make it unprofitable (most likely just for new-comers, the current players will just pay the fines), but that won't stop the guns.

Re: Towards a world without Facebook

#154

Post by tinkerer »

tunesmith wrote: post #96

For me the trinity is facebook, twitter, and slack, so I've started figuring out how to replace them all at once. So far riot/matrix seems like it pretty much strictly dominates slack and discord, at least for my purposes. I know some facebook friends who have started using slack as a way to keep in touch with strong-tie friends, as a way to rely less on facebook and facebook messenger. So riot/matrix could reduce my…

> Twitter has sucked for me starting about six months ago when things got algorithmic, it totally screwed up my curation.

I've a carefully curated list of people I follow and Twitter is 100% useless with the algorithmic sort. Get a client that has a strictly chronological timeline. For example, I use Flamingo for Android and it's great.

Re: Towards a world without Facebook

#155

Post by dragonwriter »

avip wrote: post #129
whataretensors wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would it work with just a regular database? You'd set up another centralized honey pot that these psychopaths actively look for. > How would a blockchain make it better? Besides censorship protection, the platform could reward users to make itself better. Lots of things become possible when you have control over the reward system and don't just extract the value to the top. > What coalition of people will run t…

"Any sufficiently uncensored user-content platform is indistinguishable from a porn site"

And if it's completely uncensored (e.g., the Bitcoin blockchain), that's child porn.

The ability to do logical deletes that will be honored by the main consumer client isn't really sufficient to deal with the problem.

Re: Towards a world without Facebook

#156

Post by dragonwriter »

whataretensors wrote: post #132
avip wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Any sufficiently uncensored user-content platform is indistinguishable from a porn site"

A user can run a custom curator. Alternatively sites could be developed that give access to the network and do their own filtering. There are other choices besides authoritarian censorship, despite the popularity these days.

> Alternatively sites could be developed that give access to the network and do their own filtering.

...and add their own content, which is only viewable from that site and not elsewhere on the network. And the most popular one of those will eventually just displace the decentralized network.

Re: Towards a world without Facebook

#157

Post by dragonwriter »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #102
cornholio wrote: post #5

The quintessential moat Facebook has is its strong network effect facilitated by ease of use. Facebook is simple. To the point where my elder relatives refer to Facebook as "the Internet": the place where they can see funny clips, talk to friends and share their photos and thoughts. For every person bemoaning how Facebook extended and proceeded to take a dump into her favorite aspect of the Internet - be it online pu…

We need the DoJ to take Facebook to court for being a social network monopoly. If AT&T exhibited destructive network effects, Facebook is them times ten. “Market share” measured solely in purchasing consumers is no longer a good sole metric for monopolies.

> We need the DoJ to take Facebook to court for being a social network monopoly.

Being a monopoly isn't actionable.

> If AT&T exhibited destructive network effects, Facebook is them times ten.

No, it's not. AT&T was far worse than Facebook in the practical, and exercised, ability to deny choice in ancillary markets.

> “Market share” measured solely in purchasing consumers is no longer a good sole metric for monopolies.

It hasn't ever been the legal sole metric.

Re: Towards a world without Facebook

#158

Post by ghostcluster »

humanrebar wrote: post #149
ghostcluster wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're downplaying the technical sophistication of Facebook, as well as the pioneering moves it made during its growth phase. Compared to MySpace, which was incumbent during its rise, Facebook did everything faster, with less friction for the everyday user. MySpace would often try and stuff full interstitial page loads between core parts of its user interface. Facebook invented photos tagged with social profi…

> Facebook invented the one-column social news feed. Did it? Seems a lot like a twitter feed one could build for oneself. And I disagree that facebook won for being faster or more innovative. Most people I know switched because it was less obnoxious with glittery animations and autoplay audio. Also, the crowd, at least initially, was more attractive to young adults since it was exclusive to people with a university e…

To read your messages in MySpace required you load a full page of Ads so you could then press "Next" and then see your Messages.

Facebook in its first years did everything in its power to lower the number of page loads necessary to navigate the entire interface. So you're right, it was less obnoxious by being faster.

And I don't know if you realize how big a deal tagged photos and a nice UI for uploading and managing them was. MySpace had nothing like that.

"Twitter Feeds" and news feed launched at the same time in summer 2006. Facebook filed for a patent in August. https://mashable.com/2010/02/25/facebook-news-feed-patent/#c... Nobody used Twitter until the following year when it made a huge splash at SXSW and caused its first growth spike. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Twitter

Re: Towards a world without Facebook

#159

Post by omnimus »

marknadal wrote: post #83
tlb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people propose blockchain solutions, I always think: How would it work with just a regular database? How would a blockchain make it better? What coalition of people will run the blockchain, and why would they be more trustworthy than whoever would run the database? There are good answers to these for some applications, but I don't see what they are here.

The algorithm needed for Multi-Master (decentralized) data is a CRDT (Conflict-free Replicated Data Type). Specifically, this solves the problem of data consistency across different node/peers without needing a central (ie, Facebook's servers) master. The way it works, is like so: http://gun.js.org/distributed/matters.html However, a blockchain is still actually useful for a P2P Facebook. A blockchain that uses a con…

Hi Mark. I really like GunDB but i see your comments on hacker news so often that i almost started to think that you are a bot. I mean it is great to market your database but GUNDB can't be answer to everything.

I would understand if you were pushing some alternative social network like Scuttlebutt/Patchwork but pushing database on every hacker news post with social media theme is strange.

Do you propose to replace facebook with gundb app that is possible to make in two minute tutorial: https://hackernoon.com/so-you-want-to-build-a-p2p-twitter-wi... since you share it everywhere?

Don't get me wrong. I think GunDB is wonderful project that i actually want to use for things but maybe this is not best way to get new users.

If i didn't know about GunDB and saw your frequent similar comments on Hacker news i would be pretty suspicious.

Re: Towards a world without Facebook

#160

Post by sumeno »

vanilla_nut wrote: post #115
sumeno wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those kids these days with their new fangled gadgets and social media. In my day we walked two miles uphill each way to share pictures of cats with our friends.

No need to be dismissive. I'm in my early 20s, and most of my life has seen the use of social media as the core mode of communication. Can you imagine moving back to a world where you could only talk to friends in person after you'd experienced talking to friends over the phone? Or shifting back to phone calls only after you'd gotten used to text messages? Like it or not, a paradigm shift has occurred. Personally I t…

The GP was talking about not understanding what all the fuss is about with kids these days and their phones and social media and I'm the one being dismissive? Your comment makes more sense under the GP, not me.
Post reply on HN