How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web? • Hacker News Board

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#21

Post by gibsonf1 » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 11:34 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #15

Kostchei wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about avoiding marketing. It's about ownership and control. If I want my stuff to be analysed- I let that happen- it finds business or social matches- awesome. I just need the option to turn that off for things I don't want greped- like banking. I too am in favor of paid for services. Because that is what happens eventually. You pay for it. I'd rather make a decision and choose who I pay, as opposed to havin…

I would love to 'own' all my data. But companies offering services will win out because they do not have to play nice with you or your data store. Take Gmail, Facebook or Google docs as examples. In principle that's your data. But Gmail has successfully convinced people that Google is able to run its mail service better than you or your corporation ever could. In return for 'reading your mail', and vast amounts of co…

The big recent change with the free paradigm is that trust in privacy has been lost with these massive data silos. In fact, you could argue that we are now at the beginning of the end of this entire approach to the web. George Gilder exposes the nearing end of this in his latest book "Life after Google" https://www.amazon.com/Life-After-Google-Blockchain-Economy-... I definitely recommend it.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#22

Post by tareqak » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 11:36 PM UTC

acover wrote: post #14

tareqak wrote: post #4

Given the tendency for wealth and power to concentrate, is it possible to design a competitive, and efficient system where all the actors are sufficiently prosperous without the formation of any monopolies/duopolies/oligopolies? Edit: a follow-up thought. If the answer is no or "it's too hard", then is it possible have something along the same lines, is it possible for the proposed system to self-correct away from mo…

Tech has a tendency to become monopolistic. Well funded open source competitors seem like a solution as it would allow anyone to compete. Fund the development of software and not the distribution. It would realign incentives to the consumers.

That's part of what I'm trying to figure out as part of asking the question: what works well, but stays decentralized? There are probably transferable characteristics that we can learn about and be aware of.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#23

Post by PhilWright » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 11:39 PM UTC

The problem with your personal data store is that it will be impossible to stop the large companies like Google/Facebook from simply copying and caching a copy of all the data they need to access. You give them permission to handle your email and calendar information and bingo, they have a copy of your entire set of emails and appointments. If you use multiple services from Google/Facebook then they will end up with a good copy of your entire dataset and can mine it of value just like they already do.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#24

Post by dustingetz » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 11:44 PM UTC

TACIXAT wrote: post #5

dustingetz wrote: post #2

Can anyone name one for-profit company that wants to build software on Solid?

I don't think that's a great mark of success early on.

I've been reading about solid for three years now and there's nothing. In 1992, the Web was doubling every 3-4 months according to Weaving the Web by Tim Berners Lee page 66 which I happen to have sitting on my desk. Mosaic was founded in '93 and Netscape in '94. Solid has nothing.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#25

Post by gibsonf1 » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 11:45 PM UTC

PhilWright wrote: post #23

The problem with your personal data store is that it will be impossible to stop the large companies like Google/Facebook from simply copying and caching a copy of all the data they need to access. You give them permission to handle your email and calendar information and bingo, they have a copy of your entire set of emails and appointments. If you use multiple services from Google/Facebook then they will end up with…

On the other hand, what would stop the rise of email UX companies that provide a PAID service that links to your email with the explicit promise of never caching it? They wouldn't need to mine it to make money as google does, as they are being paid, even though the per user cost payment could be quite low to support a profitable email UX company.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#26

Post by true_religion » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 11:45 PM UTC

egonschiele wrote: post #20

zsck wrote: post #12

A lot of folks seem to think this kind of technology needs to be marketed or launched the way a hip Silicon Valley startup should be. I understand how the argument that critical mass is the necessary ingredient for success would appeal to people, but it’s not like the Internet succeeded that way. In fact, it’s probably better if foundational technology like this is developed and grown more slowly and deliberately. I…

> the platform that developers want to support is the one that wins. This is very hard to believe. Developers hate apple, facebook, and countless other platforms that are doing very well. Adoption is the fundamental problem, not what developers want to support. The platform with the most users is what people will develop for.

I think you may be in a bubble. Many developers like apple, and facebook enough to work for them. In fact, its that which keeps both platforms viable in the face of stiff competiton and shallow moats.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#27

Post by nicoburns » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 11:47 PM UTC

tareqak wrote: post #4

Given the tendency for wealth and power to concentrate, is it possible to design a competitive, and efficient system where all the actors are sufficiently prosperous without the formation of any monopolies/duopolies/oligopolies? Edit: a follow-up thought. If the answer is no or "it's too hard", then is it possible have something along the same lines, is it possible for the proposed system to self-correct away from mo…

Yes, but you have to regulate it.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#28

Post by tangue » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 11:49 PM UTC

zsck wrote: post #12

A lot of folks seem to think this kind of technology needs to be marketed or launched the way a hip Silicon Valley startup should be. I understand how the argument that critical mass is the necessary ingredient for success would appeal to people, but it’s not like the Internet succeeded that way. In fact, it’s probably better if foundational technology like this is developed and grown more slowly and deliberately. I…

While I understand this point, there are other things than the technical aspects, the Diaspora precedent is a cautious tale of why not to chose this approach : It will attract the most toxic people of our communities.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#29

Post by wmf » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 11:54 PM UTC

gibsonf1 wrote: post #17

It seems the author is missing the point in advocating big government solutions and government regulation to somehow fix the privacy problem. Imagine if you owned and controlled all your email vs. gmail reading it all? For companies, owning their proprietary data is an enormous market. I'm planning to launch a Solid service on top of Allegrograph in the next month or two to service my business customers.

I don't think they're missing anything. The article mentions that even though you "own" your data in Solid, companies will still cajole you into "consenting" for them to data-mine it.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#30

Post by photik » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 11:58 PM UTC

egonschiele wrote: post #20

zsck wrote: post #12

A lot of folks seem to think this kind of technology needs to be marketed or launched the way a hip Silicon Valley startup should be. I understand how the argument that critical mass is the necessary ingredient for success would appeal to people, but it’s not like the Internet succeeded that way. In fact, it’s probably better if foundational technology like this is developed and grown more slowly and deliberately. I…

> the platform that developers want to support is the one that wins. This is very hard to believe. Developers hate apple, facebook, and countless other platforms that are doing very well. Adoption is the fundamental problem, not what developers want to support. The platform with the most users is what people will develop for.

Apples and Oranges. Your analysis is after the fact, and those arenas aren't open development environments. Adoption follows content creation. Not every time, but the essence of the sentiment 'build it and they will come,' shouldn't be dismissed.