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

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

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 176 posts

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

#51

Post by awakeasleep »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #37
tangue wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The popular communities (Twitter. Reddit, Youtube, email spam) are already toxic. The solution to that is good UX this puts users in control of which content is put in their face.

I'd suggest a bit of reflection on this comment.

There is a bubble or perspective that derides everything popular as toxic, but I encourage you to think in degrees, and compare things.

For example, visit voat.co, and then 4chan, and then compare them to the sites you listed. And hell! compare them to your family discussions, and what you see on fox/cnn/msnbc. I bet you can find a spectrum of toxic content, and I bet the sites you listed aren't at the extreme toxic end.

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

#53

Post by zsck »

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.

This is pretty clearly not the case. Apple and Facebook are companies, not platforms. The platforms these companies develop are wildly successful and loved by developers.

I think you may be too focused on how developers decide a platform that is already successful. In that case, yes, which one is already adopted the most deserves strong consideration. However, when it comes to actually achieving adoption, it’s the platform that developers flock to that tend to succeed, all else being equal. We are talking about relatively fresh terrain here. There isn’t already a huge federated system like this that has a lot of mainstream adoption.

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

#54

Post by skosch »

true_religion wrote: post #26
egonschiele wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're talking past each other: contributing to the App Store isn't the same as working for Apple.

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

#55

Post by panic »

tareqak wrote: post #22
acover wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Looking at successful decentralized systems (the web, email, the internet itself) the common theme seems to be simple protocols that support multiple independent implementations.

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

#56

Post by johncolanduoni »

zsck wrote: post #53
egonschiele wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is pretty clearly not the case. Apple and Facebook are companies, not platforms. The platforms these companies develop are wildly successful and loved by developers. I think you may be too focused on how developers decide a platform that is already successful. In that case, yes, which one is already adopted the most deserves strong consideration. However, when it comes to actually achieving adoption, it’s the pl…

> However, when it comes to actually achieving adoption, it’s the platform that developers flock to that tend to succeed, all else being equal.

Perhaps, but I struggle to think of two comparable platforms with similar user adoption and significantly different developer interest, outside of there being different sets of developers that hate/love each (c.f. iOS and Android). I'm definitely not aware of any examples indicating a platform can be saved or damned by developers loving/hating it: e.g. most developers hated developing for the PS3 initially but it didn't fare badly in the console wars. Xbox One however did do much worse than the PS4 because fewer users wanted it.

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

#57

Post by tareqak »

jonahx wrote: post #34
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…

Price's Law says no: > 50% of the work is done by the square root of the total number of people who participate in the work. https://dariusforoux.com/prices-law/

I wonder if that observation depends on how fungible the output is. I also have a point of contention in that 50% of the work is not necessarily the same as 50% of the created value.

Wikipedia also fixes the definition of Price's Law to be specifically around authors and their publications [0]. I can see the relationship that author is trying to make, but I'm uncomfortable to how the article conflates the generalization with original definition. The original definition is also related to Lotka's Law, which is also about publications [1].

I also just watched the Jordan B Peterson lecture linked in the article, and it sounded to me that he chose to make the same generalization [2]. He correctly calls it out as being restricted to creative work, but then goes on to make connections to goals scored in team sports like hockey and basketball. I think part of the problem in all of this is the attribution of effort with the overall outcome.

Taking Peterson's example with hockey, you can try to have an all-star team of just goal-scorers be on your hockey team including your extra players, but good luck trying to qualify for a championship. "Alright fine", you say and you get two-or-three bespoke goalies on your team. You more likely to qualify now, but given the typical builds of goal-scorers and how often they get injured, and comparing that to players who play defense, now your problem becomes having a team that more injuries than average, and suffering performance-wise as a result.

Certain kinds of success can be acquired through iterative attempts at amassing fractional results into one pot. Other kinds hinge binary do-or-die outcomes. Resilience and longevity comes from striking the correct balance between the two in any situation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_J._de_Solla_Price#Scient...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%27s_law

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=UmUdcWk6Vfw

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

#58

Post by mrep »

Waterluvian wrote: post #3
dustingetz wrote: post #2

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

The concept excites me. I want companies to sell software for a dollar value. That's what solid leaves open as the one remaining business model. You can't use my data so you're just selling an app for five bucks or whatever. With the runaway success of microtransactions, I doubt this interests many. You can even see it in gaming. Spend $100 on Assassin's Creed and it still wants you to cough up $10 for exp boosts.

> With the runaway success of microtransactions

What are you talking about?

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

#59

Post by hunter2_ »

jonahx wrote: post #34
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…

Price's Law says no: > 50% of the work is done by the square root of the total number of people who participate in the work. https://dariusforoux.com/prices-law/

Hm. I worked in a team of 4 for quite some time, and it did always feel quite fair, now that you mention it.

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

#60

Post by [deleted] »

jonahx wrote: post #34
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…

Price's Law says no: > 50% of the work is done by the square root of the total number of people who participate in the work. https://dariusforoux.com/prices-law/

[deleted]
Post reply on HN