Live data from Hacker News

A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

techcrunch.com

261–270 of 363 posts

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#261
post #81
post #47

The example of GitHub they use is actually telling. Git is decentralized, so why use GitHub? The answer may be surprising: It's because social has not been decentralized. Yes, status.net existed for a while but it was just about publishing short updates. Also, a few years ago several guys from my college raised money to make Diaspora. That didn't fulfill the promise of a decentralized social web either. Bitcoin is de…

Don't forget that for email to get popular, it had to be mostly centralized (Hotmail, Gmail, etc), we are lucky it's still at least federated. Bitcoin, same story -- mass adoption turns out to be dependent on service providers hosting the wallet, and most users are not miners, eroding many of the decentralization benefits.

Don't forget that for email to get popular, it had to be mostly centralized (Hotmail, Gmail, etc)...

I'm not so sure. Before Hotmail and Gmail, every ISP provided email accounts to its customers. Desktop POP3 clients were the norm, and email was as popular as the Internet was. Centralization wasn't needed for email popularity.

Hotmail, Gmail etc. have now taken over, perhaps partly due to the economy of scale in dealing with the spam problem. But the smaller players are still present and working, so I'm not sure that email would fail without today's major providers.

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#262

Successfully attacking this problem means progress on numerous fronts: technology, connectivity, bog-simple configuration and operation, recoverability from user or system/hardware errors. Whittling these down over time may work. Most significantly, hardware costs are not presently constraining , limitations lie elsewhere. Google and Facebook's advertising support strongly tend to centralisation. Kicking the legs of…

> This might be worth pursuing on a formal basis, particularly through such indicators as financial accounts, email or communications addresses, URLs, etc., extant as canaries which would reveal a data breach.

This is a great idea, but it's not clear how many adversaries would do something in an automated fashion that would give away their existence like this.

Apart from the kind of discredited story about Coventry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz#Coventry_and_Ul...), I was just reading somewhere again that there was a policy about Ultra that nothing could be done in response to an Ultra intercept without first creating an alternative cover story -- parallel construction, if you like -- about how the Allies knew about it. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra#Safeguarding_of_sources on this point, although I can't remember where I was just reading about it.)

Automatically contacting or attempting to use accounts or URLs mentioned in random data is probably exactly the kind of thing that wouldn't be done by anybody exercising a similar kind of caution today.

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#263
https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/

> We got to the first production version of IP, and have been trying for the past 20 years to switch to a second production version of IP with limited success. We got to HTTP version 1.1 in 1997, and have been stuck there until now. Likewise, SMTP, IRC, DNS, XMPP, are all similarly frozen in time circa the late 1990s. To answer his question, that's how far the internet got. It got to the late 90s.

> That has taken us pretty far, but it's undeniable that once you federate your protocol, it becomes very difficult to make changes. And right now, at the application level, things that stand still don't fare very well in a world where the ecosystem is moving.

> Indeed, cannibalizing a federated application-layer protocol into a centralized service is almost a sure recipe for a successful consumer product today.

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#264
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the problem you have to solve if this is something you really care about. We already know that. It's not trivial but there is a clear path. You make something that will become popular for reasons unrelated to the thing it should replace, it just happens to also be able to replace it. Once you have something that everybody already uses for other reasons and can do everything Facebook does, anyone can start us…

I would say it's not trivial and there isn't a clear path. YouTube is not just a web server for videos. You can't set up a decentralized, P2P real-time streaming network (like webtorrent) to replace YouTube. Many of the features that make YouTube virally successful and a continuing platform are developed based on research produced by its analytics which sacrifice privacy to improve insights into what users care about…

> Many of the features that make YouTube virally successful and a continuing platform are developed based on research produced by its analytics which sacrifice privacy to improve insights into what users care about.

I think you're overselling it. YouTube is successful predominantly because they originally had first mover advantage and now have a direct link from google.com.

The problem decentralized services have is the same problem Google has had in taking over for Facebook. You need to provide something which is enough better than the incumbent that it can overcome the switching cost. The problem has nothing specifically to do with decentralization, and time has proven again and again that it can happen, every time one network replaces another. The next time it happens we just need the new network to be a decentralized one.

> To make a comparison - which are you betting on in 2016 - IRC or Slack?

Here's a different question -- which are you betting on still being used in two decades, IRC or Slack?

That's one of the huge advantages of decentralization. Things stick around because they don't die when one company goes out of business. Which means the process of incremental improvement can refine them into something that, once it has the incumbency, is almost impossible to displace. Examples: TCP, email, Unix/Linux, DNS. None of them are perfect but they'll be with us for the rest of our lives.

> Even if you set up a successful open source project to replicate YouTube, how will you develop it as well when your best employees are poached because they aren't paid as well as centralized companies?

The same way it works for Linux or BSD.

> How about the analytics features? How do you design an anonymous or decentralized recommendation engine with the same or similar utility? How do you power search relevance in a meaningfully private and decentralized way? How do you add the social networking features that people care about without a centralized social network?

Decentralized search and recommendations are hard. So do the easy part first.

Look at YouTube. It's really two independent pieces. One is a web host for videos, the other is a player app with search and recommendations. So you decentralize the hosting and then people make apps with central servers that do recommendations and search. Tomorrow somebody else will figure out how to decentralize the other part. You can make progress without having to solve every problem in the same place at the same time.

> The basis of modern product research and improvement is data tracking and analysis.

The underlying assumption is that you can't ever be finished with anything. But the more time passes the more refined the product becomes and the less you need to fiddle with it anymore.

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#265
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, you cannot get to Google or Facebook's level of artificial intelligence research and performance achievements without truly vast amounts of data. This argument is self-defeating. If any significant plurality (e.g. a third) of people opt into the "privacy for analysis" setting then you still have "truly vast amounts of data" and there is no trouble. Whereas if so few people want to make that exchange wh…

> Much the same way as we motivate development of Windows, Linux and Wikipedia. Isn't one of those things rather unlike the other two?

They're all completely different. Most Wikipedia content is created by volunteers. Most Linux development is funded by corporations the likes of Red Hat and Intel. Most Windows development is done in house by Microsoft.

You obviously mean Windows as the outlier, but decentralized is orthogonal to proprietary. TCP/IP is decentralized but people still make money selling proprietary operating systems with TCP support and proprietary TCP libraries and proprietary routers and so on.

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't GitHub jump the shark already after that notorious faux diversity presentation?

Not really, SourceForge bundled adware with downloads which effected all end users, GitHub did some daft presentation that had zero impact on anyone who didn't see it and not much on those of us who did.

Did it have zero impact? I wonder if white men at GitHub have the same promotion opportunities; I wonder if they face subtle forms of discrimination in the workplace.

I am certain that some white men don't even bother applying there, because they don't wish to handle a prejudicial environment.

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, you cannot get to Google or Facebook's level of artificial intelligence research and performance achievements without truly vast amounts of data. This argument is self-defeating. If any significant plurality (e.g. a third) of people opt into the "privacy for analysis" setting then you still have "truly vast amounts of data" and there is no trouble. Whereas if so few people want to make that exchange wh…

If you depend on P2P to avoid centralized servers, you're just moving the data security issues to devices that are much, much harder to lock down. That can make privacy much worse in a practical sense. Not to mention the difficulties of reindexing and fast retrieval over P2P. If I need to add an additional index on my centralized servers, the development cycle is much shorter than forcing every peer to reindex itself…

> If you depend on P2P to avoid centralized servers, you're just moving the data security issues to devices that are much, much harder to lock down. That can make privacy much worse in a practical sense.

There is no magic security pixie dust inside a data center. If the server is vulnerable and your data is on the server then you're the same amount of screwed as if the P2P app is vulnerable and your data is on the client. Possibly more screwed because central servers have data for multiple users which give the attackers more incentive to break into them.

> If I need to add an additional index on my centralized servers, the development cycle is much shorter than forcing every peer to reindex itself.

And why is that?

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This won't happen anyway, because it's a classic collective choice problem. If all people put some alternative software on their WIFI router at the same time, this fully decentralized mesh web would come into existence at once in most densely populated areas in Europe and the US (all big cities at least), and almost everybody would have an immediate advantage from it. But if only a few people do it first, they'll hav…

Are you thinking of cjdns?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cjdns

https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#269
post #255
post #251

This remains a bit of a silly argument. It is like saying we can wipe out poverty if only more people were able to get rich: the way that people progress is through collective provision. That means the state, or associations of people who value privacy (who may not all be technically savvy!) who can pool their resources and offer something normal people can use. This, unlike the decentralised web, could engender the…

Where does the world wide web fit into your model of the world? (it didn't need "collective provision") All the article proposes is that we don't have our data locked up, that it's not centralized, so that we have control. This is a pretty simply concept I think you're the only one here who is confused. Your comparison to poverty doesn't make sense, privacy isn't constrained by resources.

Privacy is constrained by technical skills in most people's model. Thats where the scarcity lies.

People talk about it as a software problem, but don't understand that lots of people have not even a slight grasp of why Facebook and the other silos are bad.

The web fits the analogy perfectly well: it has many actors and many near monopolies. This is not unprecedented: just as most people in the 19th century had houses and access to roads, people have computers and the internet now. Neither precludes domination by large companies or the very wealthy, but domination can be precludes by collective endeavours. Landlords were thwarted by building societies and mutuals, coercive employers thwarted by cooperatives and unions. Similarly, platform cooperatives can solve the problem of people's private information being commodified. Lots of software approaches have been tried to solve this problem but none have succeeded, even with sponsorship from large companies (think xmpp and google).

As yet, nobody has tried my approach because it isn't a natural avenue for exploration among people whose sole consideration is technical implementation. It has a high initial barrier because it demands a multidisciplinary approach, but once established it would only require a small team (think WhatsApp and its dozen or so employees).

Re: A decentralized web would give power back to the people online

#270
Well, initially the web was a fantastic place to be. People used the web for entertainment and people used to trust people online. Every website was unique and handcrafted.

Then, as evil started going online in the form of harassment, fraud, scams, spreading malware... people started to be reluctant of following any link, and people started to seek for "trusted websites".

In addition, people gave away the ability of customizing webpages in return for searching people by name, real time cross platform publishing, and photo sharing with access control lists.

Post reply on HN