281–290 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> cat/dog/food pictures I know you must be high school or college aged, because you didn't mention baby photos. Watch out. That's going to take over your feed in a couple years.
you guessed wrong. but those I could live with ;)
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…
It’s hilarious that people think Facebook could be held accountable. Senators didn’t say we need rules for privacy protection or that any specific response should be made by them to CA leaks, just a vague “do suff better or we might regulate you” 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…
Recall that the Obama campaign got the explicit go ahead from FB to violate their privacy policy, and built up equally large databases. Heck, recall Obama explicitly endorsing Macron. Does that count as large scale meddling?
What's hilarious is that the same people worried about internet driven misinformation are now the ones jumping into action because the media told them to #deletefacebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that hurts. What solutions have you suggested to the project?
I had expressed interest in changing it, but it would require changing the core data structure the network is built on, and basically be a breaking change that would almost inevitably result in having to start the entire social web over from scratch. Didn't see huge interest from the devs in doing so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> by which I mean SMTP, not some webmail provider Cheap cop-out. "some webmail provider" is what runs 99.999% of email. The people who run their own email, or run off hobby email servers, are insignificant. You can't turn a blind eye to where the majority of users are going to be if you're implementing anything that actually needs traction in order to be successful.
No, there will always be a provider to webmail because there's demand for it. "Some webmail provider" is irrelevant, nobody is tlaking about people who run their own server here. Federated social networks are like email: each instance is like the "webmail provider" you can pick and chose and some of them even come with their own clients and bells and whisltes. Protocol doesn't need a business plan.
How is this so hard to understand?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You know, I'm pretty sure when they said "legislatures" they were implying the imperfect-but-normal ongoing political process. The one which stretches across dozens of different countries and with some influence by the billions of non-legislator citizens. 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. >…
Amazing...even after I point out his janky biology analogy, you go ahead and try one yourself. You people can't help but to double down.
I'd really like to have a decentralized offering, but unless it provides the key features Facebook does, like the timeline, newsfeed, groups and pages, it'll be a very hard sell to get others on board.
[1]: https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/faq/applications/multiple-devices...
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?
Scuttlebutt is "against consensus" in that the only enforced consensus is that its users are using the same basic protocol—you can block content, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to agree to it and block the same content.
2018 will be the year of "alternative to facebook" apps that are in no way an alternative to facebook. To be an alternative to facebook, it should at least do 50% of what facebook does, and it should be accessible to all. Anything that takes more than 3 steps to get it running it's going to keep people out. And if you keep people out, you don't have a social network, at least not anything like facebook where your gra…
>it should at least do 50% of what facebook does It's a common mistake to attribute the success of Facebook to its features (it boils down to microblogging + threaded discussions). The usefulness (i.e. product from a marketing perspective) of Facebook isn't its features, it's the people who joined it. Look at Google+, it's not that bad in terms of features. But it lacks people, therefore it's not a competing product.…
I use facebook only for events, groups and chat.
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 really like the idea of a distributed social network, but it needs a simpler, straightforward protocol. And it needs to be free of clutter.
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…
> 1. ... For distributed systems there are more ways to exploit the APIs and gather data on users. However there is no global state, users only push-pull feeds of friends and friends of friends. (In part for privacy and in part for performance, you don't need to carry all the data for a social network to be useful) > 3. GDPR compliance about deleting data is almost impossible in a distributed system. However that doe…
this is cool! could you explain more?
i thought Pubs were needed to connect with peers on internal networks, to alleviate NAT traversal issues.
what i would like to know more about regarding Pubs - but could not find any info on some time ago - is how much it will cost, more or less, to host your own Pub in terms of data transfer/storage, CPU, etc. and whether rate limits can be set to manage this.
nice to see your docs.. i have them bookmarked for later :)