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

$1M to build decentralized social networks

requestforsocialnetworks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 134 posts

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#81

Post by zekevermillion »

a-dub wrote: post #73

So first I would suggest some sort of global service for translating user friendly names to internet addresses. Something that might have a bit of centralization at the top, but ultimately a decentralized network of authority of sub-namespaces and protocols for building servers that can translate these names to addresses. This system should also support attaching small bits of metadata to these names. On top of this…

Global address service could be namecoin. Message storage / forwarding / encryption could be secure scuttlebutt.

Personally I see no reason to make global addressing mandatory -- could be optional for those who want to be globally findable. Otherwise, use ssb pubkey as identifier and only connect with immediate FoF network.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#83

Post by wesleytodd »

faizshah wrote: post #48
cponeill wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for but I just stumbled upon the Dat project myself. https://datproject.org/

Thanks! A system after my own heart, it even uses a Merkle tree instead of a blockchain Does this have a system that allows users to keep ownership of their personal data?

Yes, the data is owned by you and signed for ownership attribution. AFAIK there is no "remove my data from the network", as it is a public network.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#84

Post by kodablah »

a-dub wrote: post #73

So first I would suggest some sort of global service for translating user friendly names to internet addresses. Something that might have a bit of centralization at the top, but ultimately a decentralized network of authority of sub-namespaces and protocols for building servers that can translate these names to addresses. This system should also support attaching small bits of metadata to these names. On top of this…

> So first I would suggest some sort of global service for translating user friendly names to internet addresses.

You can't do this without having a central authority (which people don't want to be beholden to), making names cost money (or be otherwise difficult), or accepting squatters. People aren't going to pay for names and you've gained nothing if you centralize the name store. People aren't going to accept the immobility of federation like they do with email (and it still gravitates towards centralized authorities).

I think we're just going to have to accept large hard-to-gen and hard-to-read identities (e.g. base32'd pub keys like onion service names) and we each "tag" friendly names to them locally as we choose.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#85

Post by krapp »

lyra_comms wrote: post #13

Decentralised social networks are a bad idea. Communication tools need to be inclusive and open to everyone, especially laypeople. Decentralised tools and blockchain turn off non-techies, and are overkill for the social networking problem.

That's an implementation problem mainly caused by decentralized social networks being designed mainly by techies for techies, and touted in technical circles.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#86

Post by godelski »

empath75 wrote: post #80
godelski wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe some kind of hybrid where the blockchain entries point/link to a centralized (or federated) location... Well what makes me uncomfortable about this type of data being decentralized is that I want to guarantee a delete or edit. To do that on a decentralized network you need to have a way to guarantee that those edits propagate to machines that you do not control. Is there a way to ensure this?

You can’t guarsntee that with any service. Even if you trust the website to delete it, it can still be cached elsewhere.

I'm not saying that the data can't exists anywhere. You can't prevent a state actor from caching the entire internet or a stalker from saving all your content. BUT you can prevent someone who has not done that already. Which is more common.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#87

Post by krapp »

wesleytodd wrote: post #32
notyourwork wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to suggest why?

IMHO it is the best bet for actually changing the foundation of the internet back to a distributed model.

> IMHO it is the best bet for actually changing the foundation of the internet back to a distributed model.

What does the "foundation of the internet" mean in this context? The internet's structure and its protocols haven't really changed. Are you confusing the centralization of user attention via network effect for centralization of the actual network?

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#88

Post by rixrax »

I sound like a broken record, but in my humble view decentralized social network is even worse than centralized one.

Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten' (e.g. delete content), and ability of network to moderate and update content (due to legal requirements, or due to users requests for their own content or for other reasons).

How do you manage that in a system such as proposed here? How do you enforce content to be removed due to court order? How do you take down a revenge this or that after your account gets hijacked and your password/keys are gone?

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#89

Post by vasilipupkin »

rixrax wrote: post #88

I sound like a broken record, but in my humble view decentralized social network is even worse than centralized one. Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten' (e.g. delete content), and ability of network to moderate and update content (due to legal requirements, or due to users requests for their own content or for other reasons). How do you manage that in a system such as proposed here? Ho…

decentralized social network just means users own their own data. it doesn't mean the UI that displays the aggregate social network feed cannot moderate the contents

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#90

Post by [deleted] »

godelski wrote: post #64

Why use blockchain? Doesn't that actually give you less control? Isn't the point of a blockchain to keep a ledger of the changes? So how can you delete anything without rebuilding the entire chain? Being decentralized in this case just means that now everyone has my data. Sure, it is encrypted, but are we just going to say what is secure today will be secure tomorrow? My understanding of blockchain is that it is mean…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN