It's also a system with a clear, although niche, use case that adds value in a way that FB wouldn't.
Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work
111–120 of 143 posts
Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work
#112Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work
#113Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work
#114You could do what Zuckerberg did. Start with big-name colleges. Call it FratNet. Get a few key fraternities and sororities on board. Each frat has their own node, but it's probably in a data center and costs like a Wordpress site. Offer it on mobile. Log in with face recognition. A key function is a good events calendar and invite system.
Then roll it out to other groups which have lots of events, such as churches.
Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work
#115What short sighted click bait. Steem has already solved or partially solved most of these problems and we haven't even scratched the service. Read the Steem white paper [1] if you want your mind blown. [1] https://steem.io
It's decentralized but needs: - My Email Address - My Phone Number Not really the sort of decentralized I was hoping for..
Account creation costs real money, which we subsidize. Anti-spam is required. No phone number or email address is required to use the blockchain, only for Steemit Inc to buy you an account and give it to you for free.
Anyone with an existing account can create more, if they pay. AnonSteem simply sells creation for btc and ltc with a markup.
Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work
#116I use mastodon, but I don't host my own server. I just joined one of the many already existing servers. Similarly, email is decentralized, but most people don't host their own servers.
Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work
#117None of the reasons they give -- difficulty of user acquisition, conflict between security and convenience, curation, or economies of scale -- are fundamental obstacles to making a decentralized social network. Mastodon has found some success despite facing the same problems.
Mastodon is not successful, at all. Apparently content that was not accepted on twitter, such as lolicon, has found a new home on Mastodon. The average user would never bother to migrate to decentralized services for any other reason then necessity, lack of choice, or to escape rules/laws.
I don't know about your definitions, but in my playbook 800,000 users is pretty damned successful. Let me reinterpret your comment for you: "I do not want to believe Mastodon is successful, since it hurts my view."
> Apparently content that was not accepted on twitter, such as lolicon, has found a new home on Mastodon.
Unsurprising. All communities end up with some version of this problem, be it hate speech, illegal content, piracy, etc. And it can definitely be harder to police in these kinds of federated environments... but it's certainly not an unsolvable problem. People just have to want to solve it. Twitter has a huge problem with hate speech on their platform, as an example, but they've basically turned a complete blind eye to it for years and years. (And even now after they've started trying to add some support for content policing, reporting hate speech still requires far too many clicks to be reasonable, given the rate people can churn it out...)
In fact, when your platform starts to have these problems, it's usually a sign you've done something right. It means your platform is actually mature enough to abuse, unlike other platforms that failed to reach this status like Diaspora. That's not a sign to give up, it's a sign that you need to start thinking about how to solve these new problems. (And they're hard problems to solve, often coming down to jurisdictional boundaries and "default deny" policies simply because the problem is seen as too hard to fix in software. You even see Google struggling to solve these problems - e.g. on YouTube it's still common that they ban content erroneously, claiming it to be extremist or whatnot.)
> The average user would never bother to migrate to decentralized services for any other reason then necessity, lack of choice, or to escape rules/laws.
Or you know, because they want to. There are plenty of reasons to leave Twitter behind: It's adding bloat that hardly any of the users care about, with yawn inducing, bandwidth destroying live video, infuriating autoplaying video, and "moments". It continues to pollute feeds with garbage from other users with no way to filter it (like "[so and so liked this]" - good for them, but this isn't Facebook...). And now they're even messing with chronology, so you get messages from hours in the past appearing at the top of your feed instead of up-to-the-minute content that you'd expect. (And my personal favorite anti-feature, the "you have location tracking disabled, we will not track your location" location-tracking sidebar filled with location-specific content.)
Looking at all of those downsides, then comparing with Mastodon which doesn't have any of those problems, supporting large messages, spoiler tags/content-under-the-fold, having decent Android clients, and decent, growing communities, and, well... it's really quite a compelling platform for me.
Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin started as a non-profit (obviously not technically but my point is, cryptocurrencies allow you to leverage and trade value created without external money)
Yes but a cryptocurrency only makes sense for certain use cases. In this case, the token would have to serve some sort of useful function related to the social network.
Https://akasha.world
Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work
#119Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work
#120I think we should keep trying. All private internet services are doomed to die. It's inevitable. Only decentralized services can live on and keep us truly free.