Live data from Hacker News

Distributed Everything

medium.com

41–50 of 121 posts

Re: Distributed Everything

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a great service, but it's a bit much for the non-technical. IRC was full of non-technical people in the 90s. #teenchat was consistently the most popular channel on a number of networks! IRC used to be filled with the sort of inane chatter that seams to be the bread-and-butter of services like Twitter and Facebook. :)

The teen chatters of the world—the ones who set the cultural trends—got a handle on it, but did their parents? :)

The parents often don't catch on Twitter either.

I think it's mostly due to a different communication culture, not technical ineptitude.

Re: Distributed Everything

#42
post #32

Recently I've been fascinated by the concept of individuals having a "private cloud" service - a server that they own or rent, which has all the data that an individual could hope to have centralized, contains APIs and UI for remote access from client devices, and acts as the middleman for most transactions with the outside world. The beauty of this is that if it were developed as a unified system, minimal tinkering…

The Locker Project (http://lockerproject.org/) had a really promising approach to this - by centralising all of a users information from different services and offering a uniform api they effectively had a solution to the bootstrapping problem that plagues other social networks. Unfortunately it looks like Singly have pivoted away from that vision. I guess there's not enough demand for it to make any money.

Re: Distributed Everything

#43
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has been relatively "good" to us, the users, so far, and they've even been our allies in some cases(SOPA, ITU). But make no mistake, when the Internet will start a trend towards fully decentralized/more anonymous services, they will become our enemy , because that will endanger their very way of making a revenue. If I were a Google boss I'd try to start making money from other business models besides ads as so…

I agree with your point, but think your wording sidesteps the issue. Google has been our allies because the same things that we were against (IE a closed internet) directly endanger their revenue. They won't change their attitude when they see a huge threat to their revenue, although we may notice that their motives have always been revenue, and that does not necessarily align with ours. Additionally, I'm not sure de…

BTW why a rise of anonymous private communication would mean an end to the existing web, as indexed by Google? A lot of things are still perfectly OK to do in public. Consider open information sites as Wikipedia, most business information sites, and even most online commerce.

Re: Distributed Everything

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a great service, but it's a bit much for the non-technical. IRC was full of non-technical people in the 90s. #teenchat was consistently the most popular channel on a number of networks! IRC used to be filled with the sort of inane chatter that seams to be the bread-and-butter of services like Twitter and Facebook. :)

The teen chatters of the world—the ones who set the cultural trends—got a handle on it, but did their parents? :)

Good point, and it raises an interesting question.

Is Facebook really that much easier to understand than e-mail, usenet, and IRC? Or is Facebook just better at marketing?

When my Mom wanted to get on to Facebook there was definitely a learning curve. She had to be shown by my sister and myself how to do everything... sign up, post photos, learn about what a "comment" was, how to add people, manage things... Facebook is quite a complex piece of software. I don't necessarily think that Facebook requires less technical skills than decentralized services.

In my opinion, the reason Facebook is popular across all demographics is because it is based on real identities. Real names, real faces. Before Facebook the Internet fully embraced anonymity and this requirement to partake in role playing, having an avatar that was separate from yourself, was confusing and a little bit terrifying to older people. My mom would always wonder WHO I was talking to on the Internet. They could have been a murderer, or a kidnapper! If you can't see their face or know their name, she thought, how could they be trusted? My parents are NOT on Twitter and will probably never be for similar reasons. It is too weird for them to think about having a separate personality. They weren't stage actors or used to the public eye because they were raised in a very different media environment. The distributed Internet turns us all in to celebrities. Facebook keeps things the way they were but allows people to benefit from the same abilities to publish, just to a seemingly private group of close friends and family.

Facebook, in my opinion, is a nice little service to hold your hand while introducing you to this very different new world that is emerging.

On the topic of marketing and technology... I'm just going to use Sun and Java as an example because I was recently talking about this and it's fresh on my mind. Sun did an amazing job of marketing Java on the Internet. In the mid 90s every other web page had that little Java mascot on it. They took the Internet and ran with it, big time. There were much better and much easier tools around but their creators didn't do enough to evangelize their benefits. You gotta get out there and sell this stuff to people.

It took open source software a LONG time to realize this. Products will wither and die without proper marketing and advertising, no matter how much better they are.

"Great marketing and decent technology gives you a better bandwagon than great technology and decent marketing", as said by Ralph Johnson at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?JavaVsSmalltalk - which BTW, is a great little wiki full of interesting conversations from a bunch of old timers and academics.

Re: Distributed Everything

#47
post #40
post #21

The real problem with little distributed websites is attention. The same problem websites had since the 90's. How to get indexed by search engines. How to be go to places. Poogle Glus, F *book, Shitter are tools for managing attention. Who is paying attention to you? Random visitors or people from your address/contact book? How easy is it to get? On Facebook everyone can get a few likes. On old websites you dig throu…

Who exactly needs attention, and from whom? * Businesses. Well, when I want to contact a business, I type its-name-dot-com and get there, usually without fail. Such sites get indexed pretty well, too, so googling for a relevant thing shows them. * "Top bloggers". They usually maintain their own websites anyway. If not, services like blogger.com and medium.com are OK for them, unless what they post is highly controver…

Businesses don't get the attention they want and have little idea if the attention they get from spamvertising are curious page views, capable buyers or people that think their business is crazy.

Quite a common theme on HN.

Also having to know the name of a business to search for them biases everything towards big players. Good luck remembering these http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kwkfi5tqEi1qzqh0wo1_500.pn... when you need them.

Impossible to remember app/startup names are one of the failures of the web's design. And the design of computers in general. When I need contacts or video chat I shouldn't have to memorize brands like Facetwitter or Skype, only contacts and video chat. New players that improve on those services can live under those tags.

Top bloggers and news services are adopting content farm tactics because that's the model that fits the web. So journalism/news that the web was supposed to liberate from censorship and centralization are declining in quality and usefulness because of the current web's design pays them through ad impressions.

Commercial advantage of a new model for the web has to be significant and decentralization could be a feature but I don't think THE feature. For Linux customization, price reduction and feature parity were THE feature. In the early days it didn't have feature parity. A new model getting feature parity with the current web seems like a harder task.

Re: Distributed Everything

#49

Why is Mailchimp filtering 'bitcoin'? That was one of the most shocking parts of the article for me. (Which is a sad point in itself, that I almost expect many of the other things mentioned. But that innocent Chimp filtering out a word that the valley loves right now? Strange.)

Yes, that stood out to me, too, because it is surprising and should be easily verifiable. Any Mailchimp users or employees care to comment?

Re: Distributed Everything

#50

Why is Mailchimp filtering 'bitcoin'? That was one of the most shocking parts of the article for me. (Which is a sad point in itself, that I almost expect many of the other things mentioned. But that innocent Chimp filtering out a word that the valley loves right now? Strange.)

There's a note in the margin that MailChimp is concerned that ISPs may filter emails that contain 'bitcoin' in them.
Post reply on HN