Live data from Hacker News

The case for the decentralization of online forums

viksit.com

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#121
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Usenet, I think, has a strong hierarchy structure rather than just being a 'web', although it is that as well. So if the takedown order is directed at a server in high enough position, it is essentially removes it from all of Usenet - and it's not just takedown orders, but actors with the ability to remove content unilaterally. There were some sites that had bigger pipes and more tolerance for storage requirements…

> but there wasn't any hierarchy as such. My memory was that smaller ISPs would peer from the larger ISPs, that's the type of hierarchy I was thinking of. Maybe not in design, but in practice.

That's a matter of pipes and storage. They could peer to each other. There were a number of private hierarchies (including my favorite - the bofh.* one) that had different peering relationships.

http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=pr... and https://web.archive.org/web/20220815151921/http://bofh.taron...

Peering to larger ISPs was more of a matter of convince and that is often part of a business arrangement for a company and a client.

Another use of usenet back in the day SGI had its bug tracker write out to news. A Usenet reader was one of the preferred interfaces to creating and commenting on bugs internally. Furthermore, exporting the bug tracking system to a partner was "simply" a matter of adding them to the feed and making sure that they didn't route bugs from their server to others.

The point is that the "little to big to bigger" was just convince - not code or enforced in any way.

Many university CS departments would peer with each other back in the day. Recall that news was originally across UUCP - the same mechanism that email was sent. If you wanted to send email to someone at another university you'd much rather have them as a peer so that it was just one hop rather than going some other route that could take days to get there. And so various hub and spokes evolved. Everything in the University of Wisconsin peered with Madison. Everything in Illinois peered with UIUC and Madison peered with UIUC. Note the word 'peer'.

And if UW Whitewater wanted to get their email to UIC faster, then they would peer too. Would UW Madison complain that it's not going through them? Not at all! It meant their phone bills would be less.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#122
post #10
post #3

Flarum got a grant to make it federated like Mastodon. https://discuss.flarum.org/d/32812-the-future-of-flarum-in-2...

this is a really interesting point, thanks for pointing to it. Flarium to me competes with discourse in many ways, vs say, Reddit. one of the biggest challenges to this model (IMO) has been that there is no "subreddit" or "stack exchange" model for discovery, or for communities to build their own "spaces". my post comes at this from the perspective of - what would it take to create a decentralized "reddit", complete…

I don't want spaces where people talk about one thing in a bubble, and then have to manually jump from space to space. Reddit is both cesspool and useful resource, but I can easily move from space to space or combine them all into a bigger space of my choosing. Being able to build a multi-space of things that interest me and leave out (at least some) of what I don't like or care for is necessary. Mastodon isn't that. Reddit is, or was. Can both ideas be combined? I am not sure yet.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#123
post #37

The problem is that people think that decentralization somehow solves the problem. It doesn't. In most cases, like Reddit or Twitter or Mastodon or whatever the issue isn't that something is centralized but that things actually do cost money to build and run . Even decentralized architectures like Mastodon need that - and very few people actually want to pay for it. That is why the various efforts to monetize the con…

By your reasoning, Linux should not exist. Yet, it does, and companies make money contributing to it without resorting to ads.

A distributed, open-source, collaborative approach to forums could work. It did work in the past. Somewhere in between usenet and reddit was a plethora of small message boards run, frequently, on open source software. Many of the same people who ran those message boards now run reddit subs only because its easier and because users gravitate towards big, centralized places like reddit.

A return to a multitude of little message boards seems unlikely at this point, but migration to a monolithic and distributed open-source alternative to Reddit or Stackoverflow could happen. We just have to reach the point where enough people appreciate that there is a need for such a thing. A lot of people probably thought reddit was some kind of non-profit public service, but now they're going to have to wake up to the reality that Reddit is a business and they are now determined to make a profit even if it means driving their service into the ground. (From a business standpoint, a few years of actual profit leading to collapse is better than decades of producing no profits, especially in a sector where disruption could easily lead to collapse in that timeframe anyways.)

Moderation is a key problem to solve. Moderation is what keeps forums on-topic and free from spam, hate, and other trash, but it's also frequently abused to push bias or power trip. Existing social media sites typically do a poor job of providing transparent or accountable moderation. You typically don't know who the mods are, what they've done, what they're doing, nor do you have any way to challenge their actions in a meaningful way if you have a reason to do so.

Getting moderation up to professional standards without paying for it would seem like an obstacle to a free social media service, but today's social media sites don't pay their mods either. If you provide anonymity and don't demand accountability, it turns out people will just volunteer for the job! As such, a lack of an elegant solution to the moderation problem should not be viewed as something that blocks alternatives to the online forums we have now. They haven't addressed the problem either.

The replacement for reddit doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be there.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#124

I've never quite wrapped my head around where decentralization ends and federation begins. What's really the difference between the two? Is it a question of degree, or in this example is it only decentralized if individuals in the network own their own content?

Don't worry about definitions. Explain exactly what you're discussing, then introduce the technical term as a shorthand. Even if people had a previous understanding of that term, they'll know what you're talking about, which is all that matters. I associate arguments about the meaning of the word "decentralization" with pseudo-arguments about how nobody wants to run a server that require "decentralization" to mean th…

The definitions are interesting to me because the terms are often used as as punchline with little extra context.

Agreed that the context of how a person intends to use each term is more important. I just wish we could have a consistent definition so it didn't require a full explantion each time.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money is being extracted through limiting housing supply and lack of infrastructure investments that support high density (efficient) housing. Increasing housing supply means decreasing homeowner capital and harming the major investment vehicle of a generation. That's politically untenable. Sadly, the pain will be felt by us and our children until we are able to exercise political power, which will require harmin…

This comment is spot on. 100% of the reason for high housing costs is western governments’ limits on supply. People need a place to live, that’s the reality. If supply is artificially suppressed, prices will keep rising as long as old housing ages (and what can stop aging?) and population continues to grow.

The reason isn't 'western governments', more the fundamental dynamics of stable neighbourhoods.

Go to any country in the world with an upper-middle class neighbourhood and ask them if it's alright to plop an extra condo or apartment building in the middle.

The only way you'll smoothly get permission is by providing huge, costly, benefits to the local households.

Otherwise it would involve a long drawn-out court battle, or some scheme with the local political potentates, pretty much everywhere where there are such neighbourhoods.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#126
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker news is a platform ultimately subsidized by a billionaire. A billionaire is choosing to be a responsible owner/patron of this platform, but ultimately this platform answers to him. HN is a "good king" platform, our king has invested in public works that we benefit from and we appreciate it. Hacker news is good insofar as it accomplishes our kings goals which align with our own, but we still have a king, even i…

> Hacker news is a platform ultimately subsidized by a billionaire. It doesn't take a billionaire, even if it happens to be the case. It would be fascinating if they wished to publish the operating costs, but even without that, IIRC the hardware was quite minimal.

There are two full time moderators, who, as I understand it, have professional backgrounds and are paid accordingly.

And I’d say HN was exceedingly lucky find these excellent moderators. Not sure you could replicate that success no matter how much cash you had to burn.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#127
I’m just kind of … aghast … at the thought of reviving UseNet.

Mastodon seems to be a good canary, to see how decentralization works. It’s already well under way.

But I’m just a scarred, traumatized old soldier, and my opinion probably doesn’t count for much.

Maybe we really do need another alt.tasteless. It would seem quaint, compared to today’s foolishness.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#128

I've never quite wrapped my head around where decentralization ends and federation begins. What's really the difference between the two? Is it a question of degree, or in this example is it only decentralized if individuals in the network own their own content?

It’s not just degree. In the context of social networks, decentralization refers to the location(s) of the servers and federation refers to ownership of the data. In that context, federation refers to multiple operators owning portions of the data in the wider network, not the ops structure a single provider is using in their back end.

Theoretically you could have a centralized federated model where users own servers in a single data center!

The most extreme form of both decentralization and federation is a p2p model where each user owns their own data on their own computer.

I agree with the other thread that it’s best to understand the meaning behind these terms and not to rely on them as shorthand or gotchas, but we do need separate terms for these two concepts.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#129
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s literally a pet project of Paul Graham, a billionaire. That was my point.

That's not really relevant. The question is how much are the operating costs to run it? I know it doesn't take a billionaire. I can't find it right now but I remember some of the infrastructure details have been posted in the past and it was quite minimal. It doesn't take much to run an efficient site like this one.

[deleted]

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is spot on. 100% of the reason for high housing costs is western governments’ limits on supply. People need a place to live, that’s the reality. If supply is artificially suppressed, prices will keep rising as long as old housing ages (and what can stop aging?) and population continues to grow.

The reason isn't 'western governments', more the fundamental dynamics of stable neighbourhoods. Go to any country in the world with an upper-middle class neighbourhood and ask them if it's alright to plop an extra condo or apartment building in the middle. The only way you'll smoothly get permission is by providing huge, costly, benefits to the local households. Otherwise it would involve a long drawn-out court battl…

I think the idea of "stable neighborhoods" is complex and misses the point.

If supply goes up, existing homeowner value goes down, the amount landlords can ask goes down. I don't see any reason it is more complicated than that, the entrenched interest is obvious.

Doubling the housing in a neighborhood could halve peoples entire net worth.

Post reply on HN