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

Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 174 posts

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#161

Post by daveFNbuck »

WorldMaker wrote: post #149
daveFNbuck wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hobby Lobby is a private company, and this was critical to the ruling. The fiduciary duty myth is about public companies, so Hobby Lobby does not work as a counter-example.

The same fiduciary duty legal precedents still matter to private companies. Even private companies have shareholders (we don't have a model for companies that do not have shareholders), and the fiduciary duty of a private company is absolutely a factor in any "corporate breakup" when Founders come to disagreements, dissolve companies, et cetera. I agree with your implication in using the word "myth" that fiduciary du…

Yeah, I was referring specifically to the myth quoted by the parent, "There is no promise that a company can make to its users that outweighs the fiduciary duty that obligates them to maximize profits by any means. The only defense of this is legislation and consumer choice." I don't think that people believe this about private companies.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#162

Post by woodandsteel »

osteele wrote: post #29

The post repeats the myth “There is no promise that a company can make to its users that outweighs the fiduciary duty that obligates them to maximize profits by any means. The only defense of this is legislation and consumer choice.” As a counterpoint, see, for example, [1], that quotes the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision[2]: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the ex…

>but there is also room for improvement at the margin, if employees and customers understand that corporate actions are management’s choice; their hands are not tied.

But will they change? Zuckerberg, as far as I can tell, started Facebook because he wanted to be master of the (internet) universe. And then he hired a lot of really smart people with the same motives.

Are you hoping that at some point in time he is going to have a great moral conversion and decide to forego power and wealth and become a sort of saint who will give it all away? Seems to me far more likely Zuckerberg will pretend to reform, but keep pursuing the same goals.

What you are saying seems to be that we should not push decentralization and instead just wait around for something good to happen. Which in turn makes me wonder about your motivations.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#163

Post by woodandsteel »

woodandsteel wrote: post #162
osteele wrote: post #29

The post repeats the myth “There is no promise that a company can make to its users that outweighs the fiduciary duty that obligates them to maximize profits by any means. The only defense of this is legislation and consumer choice.” As a counterpoint, see, for example, [1], that quotes the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision[2]: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the ex…

>but there is also room for improvement at the margin, if employees and customers understand that corporate actions are management’s choice; their hands are not tied. But will they change? Zuckerberg, as far as I can tell, started Facebook because he wanted to be master of the (internet) universe. And then he hired a lot of really smart people with the same motives. Are you hoping that at some point in time he is goi…

Let me say some more. Maybe you are not trying to undermine decentralization, but if so I am still angry at you. Let me explain why.

The article is about why we need to decentralize. This is an important issue, and so we need to have a discussion to decide whether or not this is the right course of action. And we have this great resource, an internet comment section, in which to discuss it. And you are a netizen, so you should think about it and add in any useful comments you might have.

Instead you made a comment that derails the conversation off onto a track that it seems to me isn't useful. I see this happen a lot here at HN. There is a lot of useful discussion, but so often there are also people who make comments that derail the discussion, provoke an argument that isn't really relevant. I wish every commenter would first think out what is the basic issue at stake, and avoid making comments that lead to disputes that are off track from what needs to be discussed and decided.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#164

Post by woodandsteel »

tmikaeld wrote: post #28

I think that these points have to click before people move from FB: Simple -> Start the app and commicate (on all devices) Minimum features -> Feed, Chat, Groups, Events, Friends Fast -> No one will use a slow App Ownership -> All self-owned data can be removed from everywhere Decentralized -> And no one else can remove your data Privacy -> With simple sharing control So far, I've not seen anything that has all of th…

Great list. I would add financially sustainable, by which I mean there is some way to pay for expenses like bandwidth and paying people like professional content producers.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#165

Post by woodandsteel »

danielrhodes wrote: post #64

This article like so many others perpetuates this idea that Facebook and others are selling your data. You can more or less disprove they are doing this with a little critical thought. Facebook has a disincentive to sell data: if they sold user data, they no longer have exclusive control over it and somebody else can profit off their efforts in its collection. The value of Facebook is they have lots of eyeballs and t…

>So what is Facebook selling? The same thing any other media platform, from newspapers to TV, is selling: your attention.

But as the article points out, in order to get people's attention it does things like allow fake news to be posted, and allow apps to collect your personal data.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#166

Post by snvzz »

zaarn wrote: post #111
snvzz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a message is sent through an unencrypted connection, anybody sniffing the network gets: - Your message - Your account name - Your ip address (thus location) - The time at which this happens If the message is sent through an encrypted connection, but the federation connection between the servers is unencrypted, a powerful enough observer could still deduce the above.

A powerful enough observer will be able to observe two of the three properties no matter if TLS is used or not. Most Mastodon servers have TLS, exceptions usually included instances deployed to localhost. Mastodon doesn't technically require it but all clients I've seen do and the web interface relies on some features that are only available in a trusted context (HTTPS and localhost) I don't really see the problem th…

>Mastodon doesn't technically require it

That's a serious issue. If plaintext is allowed, then expect getting people to downgrade to plaintext will be trivial, because "it just works".

It's a serious mistake, but a well understood one by today. Mastodon is relatively new, and they should have known better than to do this.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#167

Post by daddosi »

woodandsteel wrote: post #163
woodandsteel wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but there is also room for improvement at the margin, if employees and customers understand that corporate actions are management’s choice; their hands are not tied. But will they change? Zuckerberg, as far as I can tell, started Facebook because he wanted to be master of the (internet) universe. And then he hired a lot of really smart people with the same motives. Are you hoping that at some point in time he is goi…

Let me say some more. Maybe you are not trying to undermine decentralization, but if so I am still angry at you. Let me explain why. The article is about why we need to decentralize. This is an important issue, and so we need to have a discussion to decide whether or not this is the right course of action. And we have this great resource, an internet comment section, in which to discuss it. And you are a netizen, so…

More exclusive moderation is required to have constructve conversations. With constructive i mean ones that construct things. HN might not be the place. (Its not for me to decide.)

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#168

Post by eitland »

Tepix wrote: post #102
lrem wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp without any server-side storage nor content discovery? These are primary requirements towards a social network and they'll cost more than another dollar to fulfil.

You can rent a dedicated server for less than $10/month that has enough resources for an estimated 100+ users. Heavy users that upload a large amount of data (videos, pictures) may be willing to pay more than casual users.

Seems some people disagree but I think you are right.

All chats I've been in on Telegram and Whatsapp over the last few years could be stored in a few gigabytes of disk space.

How would I know? I've had a look at what Telegram and WhatsApp stores on my phone.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#169

Post by Tepix »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #139
Tepix wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Btw, it's spelled "Mastodon". > If you want to decentralize the servers then you MUST also decouple user accounts from the server they signed up with. I somewhat disagree. Email is a decentralized service that works well and its accounts are coupled to the server you signed up with. It merely requires you to do some research when picking a node² or running your own. Ideally there would be some provision in the protoc…

I didn't do much research when picking a node and now I'm locked in to Gmail way more than I am to Facebook. If I stop using Facebook, I lose access to a few people I'm not actually talking to anyway. If I stop using Gmail, not only do people lose the ability to contact me, it also breaks my account on most other services I use online.

Yes. It's convenient but it's bad for privacy and locks you in. I'm not using any SSO for that reason.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#170

Post by [deleted] »

Steltek wrote: post #140
Tepix wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Btw, it's spelled "Mastodon". > If you want to decentralize the servers then you MUST also decouple user accounts from the server they signed up with. I somewhat disagree. Email is a decentralized service that works well and its accounts are coupled to the server you signed up with. It merely requires you to do some research when picking a node² or running your own. Ideally there would be some provision in the protoc…

There's less friction in moving to a new email provider. You sign up, you blast your contacts "Hey folks, got a new email address", and you're off to the races. Social networks have circles, permissions, and all sorts of other clinginess. Additionally, there are features in email that you won't expect from these nodes like a useful (to muggles) data export. I can pull down my email with IMAP or POP, close that accoun…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN