231–240 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the difference? I've been calling my AGPL and MIT licensed projects as free and open source.
"Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" by Richard Stallman https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
All these decentralized alternatives don't have iPhone apps. It's app store policy that is blocking devs, ain't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a properly designed distributed social network, there's no reason your data should be visible to anyone other than those you have approved.
What if people get tricked into approving malicious accounts? Who is gonna police that? How are you gonna prevent anarchy?
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…
About accountability: if YOU are compromised, your friends' data are compromised, and vice versa. Are you saying that the median security skill of your friends are higher than Facebook? Because any of them can leak your data unintentionally.
About encryption: it's freaking useless in this case. Remember, some people fall for Nigeria prince scam. And what happen when their keys are compromised? See above.
That's the crux of the argument: you can't guarantee that your precious friends and family can safeguard their keys (in fact, I doubt my personal security practice is remotely as good as FB or Google or Amazon or MS or Apple). In that case, by the virtual of distribution, your data is copied everywhere, waiting for any key to compromise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if people get tricked into approving malicious accounts? Who is gonna police that? How are you gonna prevent anarchy?
> What if people get tricked into approving malicious accounts? Do you really need to idiot proof everything? I'd say just let natural selection happen at this point.
Okay Hackernews, I get it. Scuttlebutt isn't fully ready for everything yet. I wrote that article hoping that it would sparkle interest to both use it, plus make it happen. This is not your usual startup launch, it's a community project by multiple open source hackers. If something is missing, you can make it happen. And there are so many ongoing developments right now (see list below), that it really doesn't make se…
I think these ideas will change the world for the better.
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…
I joined a pub but 90% of the messages in my feed were other people joining the pub and subscribing to topics. 9% were people introducing themselves as new to Scuttlebutt. 0.9% were either talking about Scuttlebutt or unreachable, and 0.1% were actual content.
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…
These guys really have free reign and just get a slap on the wrist WHEN ELECTIONS ARE MEDDLED WITH.
We should leave their platforms in droves to deprive them of power cause it seems like even the US Congress won’t stand up to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I use an analogy from biology to shed light on the valid point you have? Human beings exist as part of a society--a larger organism. Imagine if a cell were permitted to send any proteins or RNA it wanted to its neighboring cells. As long as the signals are benign or simply "nuisance" level, it's fine. But if the signals subvert the very organism of which they are a part--for example, by tricking neighboring cells…
How that should work in practice is still being worked out--in the halls of tech companies and legislatures all over the world. You finally got to the crux of your argument after contorting around a bad analogy. Only tech companies and legislatures should be figuring out what services we should have. Let me tell you something. That position is the complete opposite of what Hacker News is all about.
Instead you seem to be a hurry to travel down a road that sometimes ends with the word "Statist" getting thrown around as an epithet against heretical outsiders.
> [Disparagingly:] Only tech companies and legislatures should be figuring out what services we should have.
Let's apply the same logic to non-digital goods and services: Do you believe it is fundamentally wrong for a government -- even with significant public support -- to interfere with one anonymous man's Galtian quest to sell radium toothpaste by mail?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should “a service” silence anyone? How about letting people make their own decision who they want to talk to, without a third party saying “I forbid it”.
Can I use an analogy from biology to shed light on the valid point you have? Human beings exist as part of a society--a larger organism. Imagine if a cell were permitted to send any proteins or RNA it wanted to its neighboring cells. As long as the signals are benign or simply "nuisance" level, it's fine. But if the signals subvert the very organism of which they are a part--for example, by tricking neighboring cells…
Any regime could apply this reasoning to prevent any threats to itself arising from people discussing things.