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

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#111

Post by intrasight »

Is it public discourse or private discourse?. If public, then you have no right to anonymity or to be forgotten. Anyone can record what you say in public, and that is reasonable and expected. Myself, I would like to have both - just as I do in the non-digital world. I don't expect that one platform can serve both purposes.

Private communication is not possible. Humans have been striving to achieve it for all of history. I guess that the rich and powerful can achieve it to a certain degree. The analog hole is the problem. Why is there not more technical discussion about plugging the analog hole?

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#112

Post by tbv »

lgierth wrote: post #101
ranfdev wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To add to that, here's a whole list of websites and apps built with Dat

https://github.com/beakerbrowser/explore

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#113

Post by diggan »

tbv wrote: post #112
lgierth wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To add to that, here's a whole list of websites and apps built with Dat https://github.com/beakerbrowser/explore

Similar list for IPFS projects: https://github.com/ipfs/awesome-ipfs

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#114

Post by trumped »

orthecreedence wrote: post #70
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…

I had the same thoughts. I'm really getting sick of seeing applications move to the blockchain that have absolutely no business being there. Sure, a ledger makes sense...you never want to remove or change the records. The blockchain is a really terrible medium for a social network. Maybe some kind of hybrid where the blockchain entries point/link to a centralized (or federated) location, but, then, why not just build…

But for places like Reddit and Hackernews, it might help prevent content from being censored

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#115

Post by jessaustin »

kodablah wrote: post #84
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…

If you can share those tags (and why not?), now you have decentralized "authorities" for names. "Squatting" is only a problem if someone else can take an identity after I've used it within the service. Squatting on previously-unused-in-the-service IRL identities doesn't matter at all.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#116

Post by raimue »

trumped wrote: post #114
orthecreedence wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same thoughts. I'm really getting sick of seeing applications move to the blockchain that have absolutely no business being there. Sure, a ledger makes sense...you never want to remove or change the records. The blockchain is a really terrible medium for a social network. Maybe some kind of hybrid where the blockchain entries point/link to a centralized (or federated) location, but, then, why not just build…

But for places like Reddit and Hackernews, it might help prevent content from being censored

On the other hand, it might also make it impossible to moderate the content.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#117

Post by jessaustin »

notyourwork wrote: post #24
franzpeterstein wrote: post #19

Nobody needs a social network anymore, whether it is decentralized (Mastodon, Diaspora) or centralized (Facebook, Twitter). I think the social media bubble burst a long time ago and we just didn't realize it. I also have a Mastodon account, but used it only for a short time. I speak now only for myself personally, social networks bore me quite and I have no more interest to sign up somewhere.

I agree, for me it has become an advanced phone book more or less. I use it as a directory for those I don’t regularly talk to via phone, text or in person.

I prefer email for this purpose.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#118

Post by jessaustin »

amhokies wrote: post #10
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you feel that strongly, stop using them. I stopped using Facebook a year ago, and now my most social sites are YouTube and reddit. Neither are as toxic for me as Facebook was. You won’t save others, but it’s easy to save yourself.

Just don't read the Youtube comments.

Sometimes they're pretty funny. One just has to remember that those aren't real people. They're all Martian bots.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#119

Post by [deleted] »

woah wrote: post #77
faizshah wrote: post #15

This blockstack architecture is pretty interesting, but I wish it didn't have a Token attached: https://blockstack.org/whitepaper.pdf Anyone know of a similar decentralized DNS platform and allows users to 'own' their personal data without an attached ICO?

The issue with Dat, Mastodon, SSB, Diaspora, etc. is that they do not solve the problem of who's running the servers. They give you the tools to easily sync and migrate data that can back a social network, but you still need a live machine to host the files. These systems don't specify how to find those machines and how to compensate the people running them. The result is a cobbled-together list of servers posted on…

[deleted]

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#120

Post by kodablah »

jessaustin wrote: post #115
kodablah wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If you can share those tags (and why not?), now you have decentralized "authorities" for names. "Squatting" is only a problem if someone else can take an identity after I've used it within the service. Squatting on previously-unused-in-the-service IRL identities doesn't matter at all.

> If you can share those tags (and why not?), now you have decentralized "authorities" for names.

Until an indexing service becomes a defacto standard, once again making it centralized. This is what I meant about federation (i.e. sharing your name lists) gravitating towards centralization.

> Squatting on previously-unused-in-the-service IRL identities doesn't matter at all.

It does when I can register thousands and thousands of names. This is why it must be too difficult for squatters and not too difficult for users.

Post reply on HN