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

Scuttlebutt, a Decentralized Alternative to Facebook

inthemesh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 356 posts

Re: Scuttlebutt, a Decentralized Alternative to Facebook

#21

Post by crowbahr »

tschellenbach wrote: post #2

I think it's fascinating to see distributed social networks from a tech perspective. From what I've seen so far they exacerbate the problems that Facebook has been seeing so much backlash against. 1. The whole Cambridge Analytica issue was caused by APIs that are too open. For distributed systems there are more ways to exploit the APIs and gather data on users. 2. There is a clear issue with Facebook's accountability…

The whole issue with facebook is that they:

1. Follow you from site to site, scooping up all the data they can on you.

2. Allowed all of that data to be accessible not just by you opening up to a bad actor app, but by any of your friends opening up to a bad actor app.

Calling it "overly open APIs" is misleading at best. The point of an API is that it is a public interface. If Scuttlebut has proper permissions controls then they wont have these problems... and because they're open source those problems can be scrutinized rather than remaining opaque.

Re: Scuttlebutt, a Decentralized Alternative to Facebook

#23

Post by f_leon »

remir wrote: post #11

I downloaded Patchwork after someone talked about Scuttlebutt on HN, but when I tried to join any pub servers on their Github repo, none of them worked/connected. 30 minutes later, I uninstalled the thing. The idea was interesting, the UI was pleasant, and I could see this working at some tech conference where people connect with each-other and there's a common pub server so people can keep in touch afterward, but I…

Same. Just tried to give it another shot and there's only 3 public servers and none are currently working

Re: Scuttlebutt, a Decentralized Alternative to Facebook

#24

Post by Promarged »

I wanted to take a look at how it works but the on-boarding process is not really welcoming. Getting started [0] redirects to this weird site [1] served over plain HTTP, installer is also not signed :(

[0]: https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/getting-started.html

[1]: http://dinosaur.is/patchwork-downloader/

Re: Scuttlebutt, a Decentralized Alternative to Facebook

#25

Post by notheguyouthink »

tschellenbach wrote: post #2

I think it's fascinating to see distributed social networks from a tech perspective. From what I've seen so far they exacerbate the problems that Facebook has been seeing so much backlash against. 1. The whole Cambridge Analytica issue was caused by APIs that are too open. For distributed systems there are more ways to exploit the APIs and gather data on users. 2. There is a clear issue with Facebook's accountability…

> The whole Cambridge Analytica issue was caused by APIs that are too open. For distributed systems there are more ways to exploit the APIs and gather data on users.

Huh? Scuttlebutt is fully encrypted.. doesn't that make the API vastly more locked down than Facebook/etc?

> There is a clear issue with Facebook's accountability in these areas. Distributed systems are typically open source, they run on multiple servers by different owners, this leads to zero accountability.

This is no worse than Facebook though. With Facebook, your friend could steal all of the data you let them see. With Scuttlebutt, your friend could steal all of the data you let them see.

At least with this I control who sees my data, no? Sure, I can't have accountability with a friend, but at least no company/etc has access to my data.

> GDPR compliance about deleting data is almost impossible in a distributed system.

Doesn't GDPR apply to companies? If my mom sends me a physical card, do I have to adhere to GDPR laws with her address/name? How is that any different than Scuttlebutt?

Re: Scuttlebutt, a Decentralized Alternative to Facebook

#26

Post by yellowsir »

haolez wrote: post #17

I think that the main obstacle of descentralized social networks is collaborative censoring. I don’t want to see posts in my timeline about ISIS propaganda or child pornography, for example. Are there any solutions around which allows users to block (most of) this kind of content?

you can vote, if you downvote a userid, it is like a block.

http://scuttlebot.io/docs/message-types/vote.html

Re: Scuttlebutt, a Decentralized Alternative to Facebook

#27

Post by roywiggins »

haolez wrote: post #17

I think that the main obstacle of descentralized social networks is collaborative censoring. I don’t want to see posts in my timeline about ISIS propaganda or child pornography, for example. Are there any solutions around which allows users to block (most of) this kind of content?

Now that machine learning classifiers are more and more mainstream, I'd hope someone would build a system of pluggable ones you could use to dynamically block what you don't want to see.

When it comes to systems like scuttlebutt though, can't you just pick who you follow and if someone posts stuff you don't like, unfollow them?

Re: Scuttlebutt, a Decentralized Alternative to Facebook

#28

Post by fenwick67 »

The biggest problem with SSB right now as a FB alternative is there's no way to sign your messages so only your friends can read them, unless you have only 7 friends.

The utility of Facebook is that I can share things privately with friends and family. There are already lots of alternatives for public sharing.

Re: Scuttlebutt, a Decentralized Alternative to Facebook

#30

Post by cat199 »

tschellenbach wrote: post #2

I think it's fascinating to see distributed social networks from a tech perspective. From what I've seen so far they exacerbate the problems that Facebook has been seeing so much backlash against. 1. The whole Cambridge Analytica issue was caused by APIs that are too open. For distributed systems there are more ways to exploit the APIs and gather data on users. 2. There is a clear issue with Facebook's accountability…

this entire complaint centers on the over-paternalistic notion that it is the service operators responsibility, rather than the users, to solve these problems, and that this is the desired state of affairs.

1) ... on the users that have chosen to enable this

2) ... for the users that use other peoples servers or servers from disreputable people, or share to those who do the same.

3) ... and? this presumes GDPR is a good thing

4) ... it's impossible to view a list of viewed messages, perform bulk operations, flag, sort, group etc. facebook to the same level that can be done in other 'archaic' technologies such as email. presuming commercial ui's are designed for user friendlyness rather than increasing user engagement, etc. is a red herring. also, strawman.

5) much like HTML, TCP/IP, SMTP, HTTP and everything else the internet runs on?

6) which is why spam filters don't work? and users don't have brains to do this themselves?

Post reply on HN