Live data from Hacker News

The case for the decentralization of online forums

viksit.com

161–165 of 165 posts

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#161
Like many of you, I often get nerd-sniped into thinking about what it would take to create a perfect, frictionless medium for decentralized communication. All of the usual hits, like IPFS, paid posts via micro-transactions, etc. often make an appearance in these brainstorms.

But today, I took another tack: I started wondering what it would actually _be_ like if you had such a technology. Skip the 'how', and just imagine there was a way to open an edit-text field and send your message to "the world", with no intervening centralized boogeyman waiting in the middle.

The thing that suddenly struck me is the question of how anybody would _find_ your message. Ok, you yeeted your thought out into cyberspace - who cares? Who's going to read it?

I find that in my own habits, the question of who's going to read my message has a LOT to do with how interested I am in sending it. I suddenly realized that this is the critical point. Something that Reddit has going for it is that using it has the subjective quality of going to a _place_ in the world - a fixed place that others can find. It's not just that your content is discoverable per se, but rather that it _will be discovered_, because it is posted in a known, frequented place that will have other eyeballs. Like Martin Luther's 95 Theses, _where_ you post most messages has a lot to do with how interesting they are. It's accessibility, yes, but also the practical question of whether people will actually exercise their ability to access it. If Martin Luther had nailed his theses to a random tree in the forest with complex directions on how to go find it, it just wouldn't have been the same. They would have been almost as easy to access (except perhaps for people who didn't find it easy to navigate the forest), but the fact the church door was an inherently centralized high-traffic zone WAS what made it interesting.

Perhaps this sounds a bit trite, but I've started to realize that we crave centralized places to converse because conversing isn't nearly as much fun without an audience. The Reddits and Twitters of the world are popular and interesting _because_ they are a centralization of our communications - a front door of the church we can pin things to. If you find yourself thinking this is very incomplete, give it a beat. For instance, like me, you might have some level of disdain for performative soap-box'ing on a platform like Twitter. You might object that "sure, a lot of Reddit was crappy, affected karma-farming, but I just used it to discuss analog audio equipment and ask tech support questions about Rust!". But even niche interests, tech support, NSFW subreddits - the are all fundamentally relying on the same principles of knowing that you will have an audience. You might want different audiences at different times, of course, but most of the fun is related to how close you can get to the upper bound of who you wish could look at your content. Maybe you don't really care that the whole WORLD can see your post, just that the entire world of ukulele enthusiasts can see it. But within that slice, the more the better. Also the more that you put those disparate audiences next to each together with a central nexus / map, the bigger overall audience you can expect to have due to cross-pollination.

I bet that if you're really honest with yourself about what your favorite places to discuss weird topics in the 90's were, you'll realize that even though it was some phpbb forum, there was some microcosm of centralization going on, if even just at the level of human affairs. If it was some esoteric hobby, then you were probably talking on the official forums of some organization that ran the biggest public events related to that hobby, or whatever. Whatever it was, there was _some_ germ of a winner of a popularity contest - some entity that had the visibility and recognition to centralize the discussion and make it a place where you might get some interesting eyes on your text.

I could be misunderstanding some of the fediverse, but it seems like there's an explicit intention to create these autonomous sub-communities and remove any kind of centralizing authority. But really, that top layer generally IS the value, and is how you create a sense of Place. You can make the infrastructure as decentralized as you want, of course, but if the discussions themselves don't feel like they're happening on the church doors, you really don't have anything a phpbb forum doesn't have. You've basically just got people sending messages out into the void, which is about as fun and interesting as talking to a customer support chatbot. So, at _some_ resolution, none of this is interesting unless you're giving people a way to post their content in THE place to discuss this topic. "A" place to discuss this topic is comparatively worthless.

Zooming way way out, I want to make a higher-level comment using an analogy. All of online experience is a lot like a party. There are many things that it's good to have for a party: food, music, drinks, entertainment, shuttle service - lots of things. Yet we can all think back to parties that forewent some or all of these things and still gave us fond memories. There are a few things, however, that your party _has_ to have, like, definitionally: a place to be, and great people that show up. A party without these things isn't a party. And if you organize all of the nice-to-haves, but skip the essentials, then you've just got something very sad... like a loud, well-catered, empty basement. Related - sometimes bigger parties are better, but at a certain point, things just end up crowded, and probably a lot of your favorite people have left anyway. Once somebody starts charging exorbitant rates at the door, things might be headed downhill.

The point of the analogy is that where we humans choose to gather online is a fluid and vexing thing. You're going to find it impossible to write hard-and-fast laws about how your new discussion space should work because all that really matters is people are finding a way to have fun. This party-like quality, more than anything else, accounts for the ephemeral nature of all online platforms, and the natural herd migrations from myspaces to facebooks to instagrams to snapchats to tiktoks, etc. And sure, AFTER the fact, you can look back and give a technical analysis of why Facebook succeeded. You can also look back on your party and point to specific things that created a fun situation. But this never transmutes into some kind of formula for future success, and if you think you have one, you're probably chasing last night's party. Are we so sure that holding the party at Brad's house is what made the party bad? Yeah, he started charging $5 a head, and a bunch of jerks showed up at the end. But I'm not so sure that means we should swear off house parties from now on. Like, I salute the open-mindedness of the guys trying to figure out a way to hold a party without a host... you know, as a thought experiment. But it would be cool if there was a place to hang out next Friday, too...

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#162
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usenet was literally decentralized before this was even a buzzword.

You're right. When I think of 'decentralized', and what I meant, was something offering anonymity and resistance to takedown orders, which are things it didn't have real protection against.

Sorry but anonymity and resistance to takedown orders is not solvable by technology. What you are asking for is basically for tech to let you violate applicable laws.

Whether the law is good or bad is another story but as long as that law is in force this sort of requirement is a mirage.

Server operators don't exist and live in a vacuum, when they get services blocked, servers seized and prison sentences imposed for not cooperating with lawfully issued orders (such as a subpoeana to identify a criminal using the service), then what? All that is happening already.

If you want to deal with unlawful orders of this kind or abuse by the authorities then the technology is the wrong battlefield to fight this. This has to be done in parliaments, not server rooms.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#163
post #148
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

>> ...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.

I asked how you think MAILING LISTS work, not how email works.

And you obviously have no idea how MAILING LISTS work

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#164
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…

If we look at this from a technical perspective, what is the cost of running such a service? Something like Facebook obviously costs a lot more to run, as it stores photos and video and also provides each user with an individually generated feed. In contrast HN is rather lightweight and basically serves mostly static cachable content to all users. I believe it was stated somewhere that the entire HN comfortably runs…

The cost is not in the servers (even though that costs money too, obviously).

90% of costs of places like Facebook are wages and various other expenses that you need too once you are running operation at a similar scale.

E.g. you do need to pay for a large team of lawyers because you are dealing with a ton of copyright takedowns, cease and desists, even lawsuits every single day.

The same with large team of moderators/content reviewers because in many countries people posting illicit content (with the definition of illicit being different by country!) may get your business blocked/shut down in that country. Including seizure of domain, any hw you may there, etc.

Add to that various regulatory compliance (e.g. the the GDPR once you are above certain size), engineers to run and maintain the systems, security team to deal with any attacks that happen 24/7, accountants, secretaries, even janitors and cleaners to keep the offices habitable.

Those are the actual costs. Not your puny server in a closet.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now we get to actual solutions: public funding. But it's something a lot of people don't want to admit. We skirt around the issue, this relies on donations, that relies on the goodwill of the owner, all of it to ignore the fact that what we really want is public funding for crucial software such as forums/social networks (and hosting them).

> what we really want is public funding for crucial software such as forums/social networks (and hosting them). Maybe some people want that. Your "we" is putting in a lot of work.

Pedantry doesn't get you anywhere, you should know this by now you're a grown man.
Post reply on HN