$1M to build decentralized social networks • Hacker News Board

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#131

Post by raimue » Sat, May 12, 2018, 8:02 PM UTC

trumped wrote: post #130

raimue wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moderation is not only about voting. The titles of submissions are regularly edited, for example to add year numbers to add context when an article was published. Of course such edits could be stored in new blocks with the information to replace the title of previous blocks. However, it would not be possible to delete any content.

So you answered your own question... just don't look at the blocks that are marked as "outdated/spam/etc" if you don't want to (but history would still be preserved)

I did not ask any question, I stated a fact. But yes, history will be preserved. However, the point of moderation is also to delete inappropriate content, not only hide it.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#132

Post by dcbadacd » Sat, May 12, 2018, 10:56 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #123

dcbadacd wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes The right of users to assert control over their identity is different from the control over all of the data the user put online. Your right to your data should end with my right to my data. As I said, data deletion is so often damaging it's ridiculous. > or your desire to have t…

>The right of users to assert control over their identity is different from the control over all of the data the user put online. I don't believe it is - the data you put online is your online identity, for better or worse. Control of one is control of the other, especially when it comes to social media, which often has the mediation and sale of that identity as part of its business model. >Please don't twist my word…

> Why should you have the right to add data to a service, but not to delete it if you choose? Particularly when those services claim an arbitrary right to do so themselves?

Why should I have the right to delete content that relates to other people, if I might even say important to other people? Simply because I was the first should mean that I get to say what happens to the content?

> Link rot, unfortunate as it is, is a feature, not a bug.

Really curious, how is it a feature, not a bug?

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#133

Post by DeadSuperHero » Mon, May 14, 2018, 6:47 PM UTC

gitgud wrote: post #43

Robin_Message wrote: post #7

One of the questions is: "describe your social network in 50 characters or less." "Facebook but decentralised" is already 26 characters so that seems like a bit of a tight limit. I suppose it'll help find people who have any marketing nouse, which is the actual challenge for a project like this, not technology.

Last question: "Please implement the social network in 5 weeks or less, GitHub link to code too please"

That's super ridiculous. You wouldn't want to use a decentralized social platform in a production environment that's only got 5 weeks of development work in it.

As an aside, do the submissions have to use the Blockchain? There are already a ton of good decentralized social platforms that make no use of a blockchain whatsoever, and the majority of them inter-federate with one another.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#134

Post by gitgud » Wed, May 16, 2018, 12:06 AM UTC

DeadSuperHero wrote: post #133

gitgud wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last question: "Please implement the social network in 5 weeks or less, GitHub link to code too please"

That's super ridiculous. You wouldn't want to use a decentralized social platform in a production environment that's only got 5 weeks of development work in it. As an aside, do the submissions have to use the Blockchain? There are already a ton of good decentralized social platforms that make no use of a blockchain whatsoever, and the majority of them inter-federate with one another.

Sorry if it wasn't clear that it was a joke.

A lot of these ICOs want developers to invest their money AND build the product for free.

I agree, there are a lot of good non-blockchain solutions to this... like most ICOs