231–240 of 363 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's not a fact
It is a fact. Some people don't understand. And even if it were false, that doesn't make it condescending. People are wrong about things all the time without it being condescending.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many computer users can do this, but most computer users can't. So most users don't have that choice.
Saying they don't have a choice is sorta disingenuous. Almost everyone was born with the required organs. Most of the tech has free alternatives and instruction exists in numerous freely accessible and easily digestible blog posts and YouTube videos. Saying the users have no choice in this matter is like saying a lot of users can't choose to vote because they're not registered and they don't know where the polls are.
But when you put a person's life in to context, how do you expect a working mother of three to just learn the tools? What if she has the remotest of computer literacy? That is, she could operate Facebook but no more? Then is it reasonable to expect her to learn how to administer her own server? Can she choose to spend hours a week learning for months while her children need food to be prepared for them, clothes to be washed, and beds to be made? In a practical, not theoretical sense, does she really have that choice?
The example with voting feels disingenuous because voting is specifically designed to be accessible to every person. Learning bash and administering your own web server is absolutely not the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "People don't understand" is a condescending statement and is exactly the reason why the people who try to build these decentralized systems never succeed, because they don't even understand why people use information silos. If you really think that's the problem and you think you know better than other people, you should quit using every single centralized system out there, like your bank (they take your money a…
1 . > It is these "decentralized" people who are out of touch, not the ordinary people. This statement seems a bit condescending, just saying.. 2. In my post I'm not trying to make value judgements, but just offer a possible explanation why things are the way they are, and who may have better chances to change them. 3. I don't think that we should/can decentralize everything, but I do believe there is a worrying tend…
It's usually a safer bet to dismiss the assumptions of some small group of people than think that the whole general population are idiots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For people to switch to something else they need to find out about it first, and to find out about it somebody has to promote it to them The perceived higher value itself is the incentive that will make people tell other people about it. People like to share things they really like or dislike. It gives them something to talk about ;-)
No, not really. To tell each other they first need to find out about it too and not just find out, but also try to use it. You can benefit from this, of course, but it cannot be a force moving product until it reaches some critical mass.
You seem to talk about building a platform to replace Facebook, Snapchat, Google and others like them ? Good luck ;-)
Snapchat made it by offering easier photo options before Facebook did. Whatsapp did the same with messaging. Maybe some startup will make it with VR before the others do. But 'more power' and 'decentralized' will simply not do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1 . > It is these "decentralized" people who are out of touch, not the ordinary people. > This statement seems a bit condescending, just saying.. I don't think that's what condescending means. Decentralization/Centralization is nothing new. In fact the entire history of humanity is about pendulum swinging back and forth between centralization and decentralization. And in 100% of the cases when this happens it's not…
> I don't think that's what condescending means. Not a native speaker, so maybe I got that wrong, but this is the definition Google gives: "having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority.", and this is what I was referring to. Agree with what you say about the varying degrees of centralization/decentralization throughout history, but don't think that these changes happen out of the blue. Education is usuall…
Well, who is patronized? Those decentralized groups that think that the masses "don't know what's best for them", or someone pointing out that such groups are out of touch with reality?
In the end, any critique can be though as "patronizing" -- it implies the one making it knows better than those he criticizes. But I think that's too low a barrier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to say something like this, at least back it up with something. Anyone can say "You two are both wrong" and sound smart. Also which part of "people don't understand" is not condescending? Funny enough, I watched this movie called Barton Fink last night, and it's a perfect depiction of this nonsense.
Maybe you think the web can only be totally decentralized or totally centralized, but I don't think so and that's why I made the comment. Someone can be fine with centralized banks and still favor decentralized social networks and running your own p2p servers, for instance. If you disagree, fine, but don't pretend that my post was condescending. Take it easy.
The bank analogy was about how there are upsides and downsides to everything, and the society is not as stupid as to have no clue what's going on. For things like this the world follows the collective intelligence.
Even the people who have no idea how a bank works still use bank with no problem because of the collective knowledge. We know that a bank is safe enough and provides more upsides than downsides.
But this is not always the case. In countries where people have low confidence in their government, even the "ignorant people" who have no idea how Bitcoin works learn about the benefits and move away to it. This is not a result of some intellects trying to convince the "uninformed" how the world should work. It's a result of the collective intelligence recognizing how the pendulum has swung and now there's more downsides than upsides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1 . > It is these "decentralized" people who are out of touch, not the ordinary people. This statement seems a bit condescending, just saying.. 2. In my post I'm not trying to make value judgements, but just offer a possible explanation why things are the way they are, and who may have better chances to change them. 3. I don't think that we should/can decentralize everything, but I do believe there is a worrying tend…
> This statement seems a bit condescending, just saying.. It's usually a safer bet to dismiss the assumptions of some small group of people than think that the whole general population are idiots.
Decentralizing will be great until people realize that they need access to information outside their enclaves, then there will be another push for centralization.
Additionally, who are these People the author writes about? All of the tools cited, while freely available to anyone, are geared toward power users in installation and operation. That doesn't sound like "The People" to me; it sounds more like an elite group (although a pretty large and diverse elite group, within itself).
If all you're going to do is stand by the highway and wave signs and shout slogans, I wish you well with that plan but I don't think it's going to work. The people you're opposing (who are actually people, too) have got better and more convincing arguments, as well as positive results that matter to their customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we're not talking about them. We're talking about the millions of people who don't want that deal, or wouldn't if they thought about it, but are currently being forced into it by network effects and lack of existing viable alternatives.
I'm talking about them because I disagree with the ideological sentiment that they are not a significant portion (perhaps majority) of the population. How did you quantify the "millions of people" who you claim are ignorant or unwillingly forced into it? It's easy for people to misunderstand others' values as being based on misconceptions and assume they are either ignorant or malicious. Members of identity groups (i…
Yet, when "network effects" drive something to a place considered undesirable, even for a minority at the time, we occasionally pass laws.
See: smoking bans. Network effects (smokers are way more profitable) prevented non-smoking bars from ever forming. So, we passed laws to level the field.
I'm not saying we should do that here, but it is not without precedent.
To most people (99% ?) Facebook, Instagram, Google etc offer everything they want. So they do not feel a need for getting the 'power back'. It all comes down to perceived (!) value. Once people use one thing, they will only switch if something else offers a clear higher value. At that point offering the same value is not enough anymore. This higher value has to be something that makes every day life in a very obvious…
Where the change will come is when we are no longer dependent on paying for network access. That will be the financial incentive. A fully decentralized web would be delivered peer-to-peer via a mesh network or something similar. Anything else is a farce, because it's not just about who holds the data on the network, it's about the network itself. If any link in the chain of the communication can be controlled by some…
When is that going to happen? All those routers, etc. don't run on fairy dust and the people that keep them serviced and running kind of enjoy doing things like being able to afford to eat, etc.
Even if you get rid of that part, you have to provide power to the devices and pay for a place to put them. Don't expect that a local telco's going to let you just slap a box on their pole rent-free. Any halfway savvy businessman is going to say "Good of humanity? That'll be $25/mo to put your box in my shop." unless there's some larger, provable benefit to him or herself.
