Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech • Hacker News Board

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#41

Post by shanev » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 4:28 AM UTC

This is what we are aiming for in building TruStory (https://beta.trustory.io).

The protocol is built as a distributed proof-of-stake network, where people can earn a crypto token by contributing good content, or by running nodes of the blockchain. Users and node operators can take ownership in, and govern the network based on how much of the crypto token they own (or have earned).

I recently wrote about the architecture at https://blog.cosmos.network/building-a-decentralized-app-wit....

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#42

Post by kbaker » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 4:41 AM UTC

shanev wrote: post #41

This is what we are aiming for in building TruStory ( https://beta.trustory.io ). The protocol is built as a distributed proof-of-stake network, where people can earn a crypto token by contributing good content, or by running nodes of the blockchain. Users and node operators can take ownership in, and govern the network based on how much of the crypto token they own (or have earned). I recently wrote about the archit…

How does this prevent a Sybil attack or astroturfing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#43

Post by ClumsyPilot » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 5:00 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #17

naringas wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not? it certainly is technically feasable

> it certainly is technically feasable It's technically feasible to build a protocol that supports the distributing social status updates group chat, direct messaging, etc.; many such things are around, some are, IIRC, older than Facebook. The product Facebook, and why people use it, is more than just that technical underpinning, but involves active management. A protocol doesn't replace that, and a distributed proto…

I am confused, what do you mean by active management? How have I benefited from it?

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#44

Post by shanev » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 5:52 AM UTC

kbaker wrote: post #42

shanev wrote: post #41

This is what we are aiming for in building TruStory ( https://beta.trustory.io ). The protocol is built as a distributed proof-of-stake network, where people can earn a crypto token by contributing good content, or by running nodes of the blockchain. Users and node operators can take ownership in, and govern the network based on how much of the crypto token they own (or have earned). I recently wrote about the archit…

How does this prevent a Sybil attack or astroturfing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

We have a couple of mechanisms in place for this.

Users who have earned a certain amount of the token by being good citizens of the network will have to vote in new users. These users also moderate content, where offenders get some of their token taken away. Furthermore, network operators (validators) can vote to remove malicious content and users. And as with most crypto networks, a small fee (gas) is charged for usage.

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#45

Post by RyanAF7 » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 7:43 AM UTC

patrickaljord wrote: post #16

The "Protocols, Not Platforms" debate is naive and misses the point. Here is why: - Let's say someone builds a social network protocol (including messaging, photo sharing etc). - Let's be generous and say this protocol becomes so successful it turns into a de facto standards. - The market will rush to build the best client for the protocol. Facebook, Google, maybe an outsider will come up with the best client that ha…

You only don't believe it because you lack the imagination to build it.

Which is the case for everyone but the person who does.

Unfortunately, that person may have killed himself because of JStor.

Ultimately, you apply modalities not concepts which explains why you can't see it.

Email doesn't need to be email it only needs to provide equal or greater utility.

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#46

Post by pgt » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 8:19 AM UTC

patrickaljord wrote: post #16

The "Protocols, Not Platforms" debate is naive and misses the point. Here is why: - Let's say someone builds a social network protocol (including messaging, photo sharing etc). - Let's be generous and say this protocol becomes so successful it turns into a de facto standards. - The market will rush to build the best client for the protocol. Facebook, Google, maybe an outsider will come up with the best client that ha…

Spolsky wrote a great piece about embrace and extend titled "Fire & Motion"[^1].

The most important thing for defending against these incumbents is to aggressively prevent and repeal regulation that would stifle competition. Nassim Taleb's view on incumbents is that as long as the mighty can fall (i.e. no bailouts, no protection), it gives disruptors a chance to rise to the top (so they can later fall).

- [^1]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#47

Post by emptysongglass » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 8:26 AM UTC

patrickaljord wrote: post #16

The "Protocols, Not Platforms" debate is naive and misses the point. Here is why: - Let's say someone builds a social network protocol (including messaging, photo sharing etc). - Let's be generous and say this protocol becomes so successful it turns into a de facto standards. - The market will rush to build the best client for the protocol. Facebook, Google, maybe an outsider will come up with the best client that ha…

It is not “practically impossible” for individuals to set up their own email servers with good deliverability. I run my own and emails get delivered to my intended receivers all the time. If you want email to become more distributed someone ought to come along to make a Helm that isn't so expensive.

You just have to make the protocol sticky enough and distributed enough so one corp doesn't wield Total Control.

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#48

Post by feanaro » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 8:40 AM UTC

patrickaljord wrote: post #16

The "Protocols, Not Platforms" debate is naive and misses the point. Here is why: - Let's say someone builds a social network protocol (including messaging, photo sharing etc). - Let's be generous and say this protocol becomes so successful it turns into a de facto standards. - The market will rush to build the best client for the protocol. Facebook, Google, maybe an outsider will come up with the best client that ha…

> Now you might say, "but how about email"? Well, first of all, email is an oligopoly and it's practically impossible for individuals to set up their own servers and expect their emails to get delivered all of the time.

I do it and it works well. My advice is to try it before you dismiss it as impossible.

Regarding your overall point, this is partly a social/cultural problem. There's no inherent reason why people would not search for the protocol and not the monopolistic application nor why multiple "best" application could not co-exist. After all, not everyone has the same use case so different applications can specialize to catering for different use cases.

The idea of protocols needs to become more mainstream and ingrained into the minds of common people and this is why essays like these are important.

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#49

Post by inflatableDodo » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 9:28 AM UTC

patrickaljord wrote: post #16

The "Protocols, Not Platforms" debate is naive and misses the point. Here is why: - Let's say someone builds a social network protocol (including messaging, photo sharing etc). - Let's be generous and say this protocol becomes so successful it turns into a de facto standards. - The market will rush to build the best client for the protocol. Facebook, Google, maybe an outsider will come up with the best client that ha…

>Well, first of all, email is an oligopoly and it's practically impossible for individuals to set up their own servers and expect their emails to get delivered all of the time.

What the hell are you doing to your mail servers?

edit - also, can the client be in the protocol?

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#50

Post by rqs » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 10:08 AM UTC

patrickaljord wrote: post #16

The "Protocols, Not Platforms" debate is naive and misses the point. Here is why: - Let's say someone builds a social network protocol (including messaging, photo sharing etc). - Let's be generous and say this protocol becomes so successful it turns into a de facto standards. - The market will rush to build the best client for the protocol. Facebook, Google, maybe an outsider will come up with the best client that ha…

One question: During the time which Facebook Messenger and Google Hangout are both using XMPP, is it possible for a Google Hangout user to send message to a Facebook Messenger user via Google Hangout client?