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

The case for the decentralization of online forums

viksit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#141

Post by notatoad »

rsync wrote: post #17

We are holding this discussion on a classic, centralized, web1.0 forum which - from my vantage point - is one of the most valuable and enriching forums currently online. What's wrong with HN ? What's wrong with metafilter ? What's wrong with letsrun or doom9 ? The problem is the mistaken notion that these can be big businesses. If you can let go of the economics there is no technical - or usability - hurdle. We know…

I’d argue that HN is the opposite of a centralized forum. This is what well-functioning decentralization looks like. HN is HN. It’s decentralized to the most extreme level: there are no blockchains or fediverse or protocols because there is no link at all to any other larger network of forums, other than hyperlinks. And there doesn’t need to be.

Decentralize by making small, simple, isolated things. Not by making complicated interlinked things and trying to form a larger network. The larger network doesn’t necessarily have value.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#142

Post by flagrant_taco »

1123581321 wrote: post #128
flagrant_taco wrote: post #24

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…

That's a really investing way to put it, thanks! (and just a slightly different phrasing to the other thread that clicks better for me for some reason)

I've never thought of decentralization as a purely geographic concern - may very well be my own bias towards caring deeply about data ownership and viewing geolocation of servers as an implementation detail that I care little about

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#143

Post by mikewarot »

You'll always keep running into security issues AND the need for moderation at the heart of any community.

It is possible to actually solve the security issues technically, but that is likely a generation away. Until then, the fact that the servers AND the users computer are insecure lead almost inevitably to walled gardens, and avoiding innovation.

Thus there will be centralized locii of control for the foreseeable future. We can't democratize the way we use the internet back into a true commons until usable secure general purpose computing becomes widely available and adopted.

We had it (secure general purpose computing) in the early 1980s with floppy based computers and dialup. I thought we'd get it back by 2030, but I'm not as hopeful any more.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#144

Post by vGPU »

janoc wrote: 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…

VC’s (or proxy organizations for government think tanks) are willing to pay for it indefinitely. Why? Because it allows them to shape public discourse at an incredibly cheap bang for the buck.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#145

Post by wktra »

samsquire wrote: post #94

I'm starting a decentralised blog network I want people to create GitHub repositories for their blogs and just post to README.md in reverse chronological order. Then email me your blog repository URL or reply here and I'll create a curated list of blogs.

Are there any examples of blogs already doing this?

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#146

Post by jjav »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #113
jjav wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what I meant, was something offering anonymity and resistance to takedown orders, which are things it didn't have real protection against. Who would you issue a takedown order on a Usenet post? Remember it's peer to peer distribution. There is no central repository.

The ISP, and most people tend use use one of a few large ISPs.

An ISP can run a Usenet node and many did, but that's in no way necessary or inherent to Usenet. It is entirely peer to peer distributed. You can run your own with multiple unrelated peers for redundancy. I used to do that for most of the early 90s, it works great. There is no central repository anywhere.

An analogy is to say email is centralized because may people use gmail. Yes many people do but that's in no way necessary. Everyone can run their own if they like. For the entire decade of the 90s through several employers, I never was part of an organization which even had a central email server! Everyone sent and received email directly to/from their personal workstation.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#147

Post by jjav »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #112
jjav wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Weed need a decentralized equivalent to Usenet. That is ... Usenet. That's exactly what Usenet is (not was, because it's still there, even if not many people use it. I still read it on many days.)

It's not decentralized in the modern sense, and doesn't offer the functionality I would want from a modern decentralized solution.

What are those "modern" characteristics you seek?

I'll note that everyone who has claimed to build a better email or better Usenet for the last 4 decades has invariably failed. So there's that.

In the short term, it's very easy to build a more sleek and fancy communications platforms. Hundreds have been built and they can be nice for a while. All of them eventually fail due to the inherent limitation of proprietary profit-seeking closed systems.

Of course I'm not claiming NNTP and Usenet are perfect. Sure we could tweak them for this and that improvements. But the fundamental principle of decentralized peer to peer distribution is the core strength. Without that, any solution will ultimately fail in the long run.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#148

Post by jjav »

ilyt wrote: post #116
jjav wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> someone needs to pay for it This is centralized thinking. In a decentralized open protocol system, everyone pays for their own way, but it's very cheap at an individual level. There's no central "it". > Not web 1.0. Usenet and mailing lists(mostly) died for that, as did many "traditional" forums. I'm on several email groups where I've been a participant since the very early 90s. Every so often there's the "oh have…

> This is centralized thinking. In a decentralized open protocol system, everyone pays for their own way, but it's very cheap at an individual level. There's no central "it" It is if you want to have central page for people to visit. Someone needs to pay for hosting that else you will have no users if everyone needs to host their bit > I'm on several email groups where I've been a participant since the very early 90s…

> It is if you want to have central page for people to visit.

There is no "central page" for Usenet.

> ...do you know how mailing lists work ?

HN isn't the place for this kind of discussion style. If you insist on asking, I have been running email servers personally and professionally for 33 years now and have worked in enterprise tech companies specializing in email. I have a resonably good idea of how email works.

> > Usenet

> Central servers managed by people again.

No. You can run your own Usenet node just as you can be your own email server. That's why these protocols are fully decentralized. You also can rely on someone else's Usenet server or email server, but that's your choice to make if you wish. You don't have to do that to participate in the ecosystem. That's the strength of decentralization.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#149

Post by pcthrowaway »

pessimizer wrote: post #60
rsync wrote: post #17

We are holding this discussion on a classic, centralized, web1.0 forum which - from my vantage point - is one of the most valuable and enriching forums currently online. What's wrong with HN ? What's wrong with metafilter ? What's wrong with letsrun or doom9 ? The problem is the mistaken notion that these can be big businesses. If you can let go of the economics there is no technical - or usability - hurdle. We know…

> The problem is the mistaken notion that these can be big businesses. HN isn't a business at all. It only loses money, and in return generates some sort of goodwill or authenticity for its owners, who are extraordinarily wealthy. All problems can be ignored if we can always rely on rich people to give us what we want.

Respectfully, I think YCombinator is well aware that the benefit to them is greater than the cost of running Hacker News.

In addition to Hacker News making them the most well known startup accelerator in the world, who people will apply to from all over the world, it also provides benefits for their incubees, as they get free advertising on Hacker News, and presumably this makes their investments more likely to succeed (although I'd love to see a comparison of the historic portfolios of various startup accelerators)

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#150

Post by olivierduval »

ilyt wrote: post #82
rsync wrote: post #17

We are holding this discussion on a classic, centralized, web1.0 forum which - from my vantage point - is one of the most valuable and enriching forums currently online. What's wrong with HN ? What's wrong with metafilter ? What's wrong with letsrun or doom9 ? The problem is the mistaken notion that these can be big businesses. If you can let go of the economics there is no technical - or usability - hurdle. We know…

Well, there are fundamentally 2 problems here: * someone needs to pay for it * whoever is doing and managing that can turn bad and want more. How do you solve that to be immune to the reddit/stackoverflow disruption ? Even if it could be covered by donations it there is still problem of any inevitable management of it deciding to push it in direction different than community wishes. > We are holding this discussion o…

>>> management of it deciding to push it in direction different than community wishes

THAT is a fundamental and interesting (almost philosophical) question: should a forum/website/media FOLLOW "community wishes" (democracy-style) or FOLLOW a vision even without traction (benevolent or bureaucratic dictatorship style) ???

BOTH are good AND bad in a way or another...

* FOLLOWING COMMUNITY WISHES will ensure more and more people, but lower average quality (bazaar style) because everybody will talk about what interest him in the end... so hard to keep a focus. Moreover, community wishes is prone to forum "take over" by subgroups (think for example "extreme right" - for whatever that means, or hackers, or...)

* CHARTER will ensure that a forum has a single "topic" (even a niche) but the community won't grow as much, it need strong moderation, people will regularily clash/disagree and leave about the rules... but quality will be higher (more focused and specialized)

Post reply on HN