11–20 of 94 posts
https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/ is an attempt to solve this problem as well.
„ A network-wide reset has just happened. You may need to take action. Please visit urbit.org/breach for more information.“
Ummm....
edit: judging by the number of replies like this one, clearly has a high CTR. Might not be as bad a choice as I thought.
https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/ is an attempt to solve this problem as well.
„ A network-wide reset has just happened. You may need to take action. Please visit urbit.org/breach for more information.“
> Unix creaks and clanks and has obvious rust spots, but it gets the job done well enough to hold its position. There is a lesson here for ambitious system architects: The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough.
I keep seeing data-hubs and identity-providers touting themselves as solutions to the web's privacy issues, but I don't see how they actually solve anything.
It seems like an attempted technical solution to a social problem to me.
The real problem with data based services (ads, Google search, etc) is really that a bunch of data is collected opaquely, unethically, and in some cases illegally. The whole system including data brokers and real time bidding is out of control.
How do you grant a company access to your data but prevent them from storing it? And how does it apply to data a company generates about me? For example, if I listen to songs on Spotify, are they supposed to somehow not store it, but still give me recommendations?
This is perfectly possible.
In your example, Spotify could store the data they needed for their recommendation algorithm in aggregate form so that any link to a person was destroyed and not reversible.
And then make recommendations by running that algorithm on your locally/privately stored data, with no loss of functionality.
As such, a recommendation algorithm does not technically benefit from storing your personal data, at all.
While I totally support Tim's project, history will decide what is "on the right side of history". Unless he's from the future?
Unfortunately at the bottom is a copyright notice. Nothing is going to “put people in control of their personal data” as long as we have copyright. Otherwise lots of your “personal data” will remained locked up with corporations.
"Platforms", aka "Minitels 2.0"¤ are what is wrong today with the Web specifically, and the state of today's infocom technologies in general.
The whole point of Tim's "pods", is that just like the WWW, they aren't going to be just another private, centralized platform. Or has this word diffused to the point of losing all meaning?
¤ https://www.fdn.fr/actions/confs/internet-libre-ou-minitel-2... (fr)
Interesting in a technological sense, but what problem it solves isn’t obvious to me. It lets me granularly authorize first party access what data I have in my pod, but there can’t be any technical guarantees with regards to illegitimate sharing or otherwise copying (many might at least cache, for instance) – nor about what is collected and shared outside this system. I keep seeing data-hubs and identity-providers to…