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

101–110 of 134 posts

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#101

Post by lgierth »

ranfdev wrote: post #56
staticvar wrote: post #30

How does blockstack compare to alternatives like Dat ( https://datproject.org/ ) and IPFS ( https://ipfs.io/ )?

Dat and IPFS are decentralized file systems. Instead, blockstack is a network for decentralized application. It offers identity, storage and a way to transfer tokens. With blockstack you can easily create apps where users can sign-in in seconds and store all their data where they want.

Dat and IPFS can be used to build applications too -- checkout out e.g. https://peerpad.net and the things on https://hashbase.io

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#102

Post by dcbadacd »

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…

> Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten'

I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on. It's so hard to avoid "digital Alzheimer's" it's infuriating and we should curb it rather than encourage it. I do myself want to delete old FB Messenger conversations, but I'd be seriously pissed seeing some old chat containing only my incoherent ramblings. I think one-sided deletion isn't the solution, fine-tuned privacy settings (and thus hiding and possible recovery) is.

It's important that we don't forget to deal with this before we actually do start to notice that "f* shouldn't have deleted that".

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#103

Post by wesleytodd »

krapp wrote: post #87
wesleytodd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Web applications as we write them today are largely centralized systems with centralized ownership of data and small groups of people owning the lion's share of the traffic/data/user attention etc.

Beaker and dat are built on the same base protocols as the traditional web (tcp/udp), but also add higher level protocols for changing the centralized power dynamic I mentioned above. The key, IMO, is that there is a good story for users around transitioning from the centralized web into the decentralized web because of the shared foundation.

I see the confusion. When I say "foundation" I mean how we build applications, not the underlying protocols. Maybe I should have said "foundation of web application design", or something like that.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#104

Post by vasilipupkin »

rixrax wrote: post #97
vasilipupkin wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So you're saying it can be centralized too, as long as TOS says users keep owning their data? But even in decentralized model, you may think you 'own' you data (as in TOS), but surely it cannot just reside on computing resources you have full control over. Now if you lose your passwords/keys, who do you contact to take your content down, grant you access to it again? What is an arbitration process to decide that you'…

I think the idea is that your identity is registered on the blockchain and the data physically resides in your encrypted storage, that is accessed via this identity. if you lose your keys you are ducked in the same way that you are ducked with crypto in general if you lose your keys. I am not sure exactly, but that's my understanding.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#105

Post by krapp »

dcbadacd wrote: post #102
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…

> Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten' I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on. It's so hard to avoid "digital Alzheimer's" it's infuriating and w…

>I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. >I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on.

I disagree - the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes, or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record, which it was never designed or intended to do.

I agree that Reddit threads with deleted content are annoying, but that's an implementation detail Reddit chooses to have and could likewise choose not to have (the way Hacker News chooses to make it impossible to delete user accounts, change usernames or delete comments after a certain time.) But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate.

>I think one-sided deletion isn't the solution, fine-tuned privacy settings (and thus hiding and possible recovery) is.

Both can be solutions, but I believe the former is a necessity.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#106

Post by philfrasty »

taytus wrote: post #54
swalsh wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live 2000 miles away from my parents. I have 2 kids, my parents LOVE the small insights they get into their grandkids lives that happen on social media. I could lose the no win political debates, the self-aggrandizing from my friends, the memes, but seeing my friends kids grow, my parents seeing my kids grow. That's cool.

Do you use FB to share those moments? Wouldn't be other tools better for that? Even when is owned by FB seems to me that WhatsApp would do a better job at this.

Try the Path app, exact use case

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#107

Post by LinuxBender »

I still believe this approach is not optimal in the practical sense. I believe the issue is having a common and standard source of truth for user metadata. Social platforms are secondary to this problem.

I would suggest we come up with an authentication system that can scale across several small technical groups of people, perhaps something like OpenLDAP. Then lets put a few gateways in front of it like SAML2/OAuth/whatever. Set up replication between a few technical folks in a small circle of trust. If a friend leaves the circle, exclude their node from replication.

Now put whatever trendy web app, chat app, misc app in front of that authentication. The apps can come and go, but the authentication data, email contacts, phone numbers, all maintained in one authentication system and highly replicated.

Each application should be coded in such a way that users own their data and are prompted to download backups. Data retention policies should be very obvious to the end user and they should know this is not a long term archive for their binary data.

Each small group of technical folks share their platform with their circle of technical and non technical friends. Each geek pulls a copy of the backups in the even a friend wants to leave the circle. Different geeks in the circle can manage different pieces of the platform or different applications.

At least, that is how I would approach this problem. YMMV.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#108

Post by money_talks »

Users must own and control their data, using open standards, so that apps can come and go and people aren’t locked into them.

The biggest obstacle to this is browsers. Browsers must implement decent identity and authentication with pluggable encrypted data storage. Without that there simply can’t be a decentralized social network on the web.

Beaker browser is the only active project attempting to move in that direction, even though it might not be the right solution. They deserve the $1 million, not some idiot blockchain bikeshedders.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#109

Post by dcbadacd »

krapp wrote: post #105
dcbadacd wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten' I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on. It's so hard to avoid "digital Alzheimer's" it's infuriating and w…

>I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. >I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on. I disagree - the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for…

> the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes

The right of users to assert control over their identity is different from the control over all of the data the user put online. Your right to your data should end with my right to my data. As I said, data deletion is so often damaging it's ridiculous.

> or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record

Please don't twist my words, I never said that.

> But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate.

I think that exactly has to be up for debate, especially with "social networks", noone is social alone thus the data shouldn't belong to that one person. I'm not saying it should be new "Facebook" that should have the control, not at all, the users should get to decide. Over time I've accumulated access to various collections of images of for example events that have happened in the past. I made those pictures, I shared them, I have control over them, do you think it's right I now go around and wipe them?

Post reply on HN