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

131–140 of 174 posts

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#131

Post by AHMagic »

pishpash wrote: post #8
AHMagic wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have decentralization in three primary forms of communication: phone, mail, and e-mail. They worked great in 1998. Why can't they work great in 2018?

You pay for all three.

The world was better when people paid for communications. It's why the internet was better in 1995. Most of the people who had access needed to afford a landline and likely had to own a home or rent an apartment. The only way kids got online is if a guardian had access.

Nowadays, any kid can get online. The range of intelligence and character has expanded dramatically.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#132

Post by zaarn »

Avamander wrote: post #116
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 I HEAVILY disagree with this. Content generated by people obtains, at one point, historical value. Self-owning should end with personal details, anything involving someone else has to be kept because I think social media has no point if someone else can just now delete basically what are part of my memories. I know Facebook doesn't do this well either,…

People deleting their data everywhere leads to reddit threads like these:

Person A: "I have a problem X that I need help with"

[deleted]: [deleted]

Person A: "Thanks that worked!

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#133

Post by lamename »

AHMagic wrote: post #130
lamename wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can work but people have largely moved from them because mobile/Internet based platforms are more convenient. Just as people can travel by horse and carriage but most prefer the convenience of car. This is what happens as technology progresses. I don't think the solution here is to abandon imperfect technology in favor of old, but to improve upon it.

I hear what you're saying, but the analogy doesn't hold because we no longer need horses. In order to use Facebook, you have to sign up with an e-mail and typically a phone number (and in many cases, a photo ID, birth certificate, etc.) If we need e-mails and phone numbers to sign up for social media, then we don't actually need the social media. We can go back to simply using the numbers and e-mails.

Of course we don't need it, but the fact that millions use it is the proof that people prefer it....for some reason or another. Added value of some kind.

Better to extract the value of Facebook and move forward by eliminating the negative, than revert to something many people find less convenient.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#134

Post by warkdarrior »

Barrin92 wrote: post #55
osteele wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That sounds to me like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. Corporate culture is the direct result of the business model of the company. You won't see facebook promote decentralised privacy, it's not going to happen just like you won't find anti-oil protests within the management of Exxon-Mobile, or a push for rail based public transport within the headquarters of Uber. Corporate culture is a structure build on-to…

> Corporate culture is the direct result of the business model of the company.

That's clearly incorrect. Both Walmart and Costco are in the same retail business, but their corporate cultures are quite distinct.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#135

Post by daveFNbuck »

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…

Hobby Lobby is a private company, and this was critical to the ruling. The fiduciary duty myth is about public companies, so Hobby Lobby does not work as a counter-example.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#136

Post by warkdarrior »

coldtea wrote: post #103
kwhitefoot wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We would never have newspapers in that case. Very few have ever been able to support themselves on the price the user pays.

> We would never have newspapers in that case. Very few have ever been able to support themselves on the price the user pays. Well, if there are no buyers, then why have a product?

Because some products' value is not understood until after acquisition. Investigative reporting is in that category.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#137

Post by warkdarrior »

zaarn wrote: post #120
Avamander wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it shouldn't be that only people can take their data, I think the main value in social media is keeping a history about the user's actions, where one has been and so on. I think using decentralized servers like that will cost us a lot of data that later would have become to have historical value. We can see this loss of data well with old image hosts and forums, so much has been lost...

I see no problem in someone writing an archival activitypub implementation; a crawler that attempts to save and index the fediverse into a permanent record. Of course, you'll need permission (though sometimes asking for forgiveness can be good enough)

> sometimes asking for forgiveness can be good enough

You do not want to start there, Facebook's MO is exactly that.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#138

Post by notyourday »

Lazare wrote: post #95
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…

> It might not be strictly true in a legal sense, but it hits close to the mark in the case of facebook et al There's a difference between "we did it because we were legally obligated" and "we did it because Zuckerberg wanted to". The myth of profit maximisation being an absolute legal duty is much too kind to Facebook here; they're not just a victim of our late capitalist system. > It simply would not be a billion d…

It is not a myth what so ever:

the company does whatever those that control the majority of the shares want it to do. Absolutely no one else, unless the company engages in illegal activity has any say. Corporations are democracies with the rules of majority that are spelled out in their documents.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#139

Post by daveFNbuck »

Tepix wrote: post #100
CookieMon wrote: post #92

I would like to decentralize, but projects like Masterdon are not the way forward. If you want to decentralize the servers then you MUST also decouple user accounts from the server they signed up with. Today, if you switch to Masterdon (or perhaps someone you know is running a diaspora node), everything appears to go well until a year from now when the volunteer who was providing the server loses interest or moves on…

Btw, it's spelled "Mastodon". > If you want to decentralize the servers then you MUST also decouple user accounts from the server they signed up with. I somewhat disagree. Email is a decentralized service that works well and its accounts are coupled to the server you signed up with. It merely requires you to do some research when picking a node² or running your own. Ideally there would be some provision in the protoc…

I didn't do much research when picking a node and now I'm locked in to Gmail way more than I am to Facebook. If I stop using Facebook, I lose access to a few people I'm not actually talking to anyway. If I stop using Gmail, not only do people lose the ability to contact me, it also breaks my account on most other services I use online.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#140

Post by Steltek »

Tepix wrote: post #100
CookieMon wrote: post #92

I would like to decentralize, but projects like Masterdon are not the way forward. If you want to decentralize the servers then you MUST also decouple user accounts from the server they signed up with. Today, if you switch to Masterdon (or perhaps someone you know is running a diaspora node), everything appears to go well until a year from now when the volunteer who was providing the server loses interest or moves on…

Btw, it's spelled "Mastodon". > If you want to decentralize the servers then you MUST also decouple user accounts from the server they signed up with. I somewhat disagree. Email is a decentralized service that works well and its accounts are coupled to the server you signed up with. It merely requires you to do some research when picking a node² or running your own. Ideally there would be some provision in the protoc…

There's less friction in moving to a new email provider. You sign up, you blast your contacts "Hey folks, got a new email address", and you're off to the races. Social networks have circles, permissions, and all sorts of other clinginess.

Additionally, there are features in email that you won't expect from these nodes like a useful (to muggles) data export. I can pull down my email with IMAP or POP, close that account, and still have access to all of my old email. Hell, I could _reply_ to one of those old conversations using my new account/provider and keep right on trucking.

Post reply on HN