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

Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 143 posts

Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work

#51

Post by TeMPOraL »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #38
qznc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Identity is still a huge open problem. There are blockchain projects who promise to solve it (Civic is probably the most popular). I do not believe a blockchain will solve it. The core problem is that you need a network of trust. Currently, we have governments as trust masternodes via identity cards. Then there are secondary master nodes companies like Facebook, Google, Telekom, Vodafone, etc, where verification is e…

> Here is the challenge: There is a kid born in rural Africa. How could you proof to someone with a smartphone in the US that this human being exists? Better question: What would you even need that proof for?

So that the other side knows they're talking with (and maybe talking about, or sending resources to) a real human being who actually is a rural African kid, and not with a server farm of some sleazy US advertiser who autogenerated a fake profile.

Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work

#52

Post by TeMPOraL »

DeepYogurt wrote: post #20
threeseed wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Email is not a social network. It is equivalent to a text message or phone call.

You might call it a network of social connections.

Also, people call e.g. Snapchat a social network. But by this definition, e-mail is much more of a social network than Snapchat.

Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work

#54

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

marian0_ wrote: post #48
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I still remember when the web was only a product of Web Inc., and how long it took for independent webserver implementations to take off. Or, before then, do you still remember when email was this walled garden where everyone had an account with Electronic Messaging Solutions Inc.? It took decades until sendmail, exim, qmail, postfix, and so on came along, largely thanks to Google's help in breaking open the fo…

I mean the decentralised services of today, no need to write a snark response. THink XMPP, or Mastodon.

Ah, yeah, true, I still remember the days when the walled garden or IRC was the only option around before XMPP was invented.

Are you sure you aren't just saying "those decentralized services that happen to be built as replacements for centralized services come out later than what they intend to replace"? Well, yeah, of course they do. While those that happen to be invented decentralized first come out decentralized first. Also, I think email still is a decentralized service of today? And yet, gmail seems to be going strong in centralizing email, doesn't it?!

Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work

#55

Post by rainbowmverse »

lxrbst wrote: post #30
panic wrote: post #7

None of the reasons they give -- difficulty of user acquisition, conflict between security and convenience, curation, or economies of scale -- are fundamental obstacles to making a decentralized social network. Mastodon has found some success despite facing the same problems.

Mastodon is not successful, at all. Apparently content that was not accepted on twitter, such as lolicon, has found a new home on Mastodon. The average user would never bother to migrate to decentralized services for any other reason then necessity, lack of choice, or to escape rules/laws.

Define "successful." I think your definition might be more compatible with the writers of this article than that of anyone who actually uses Mastodon. What does a resident of awoo.space or witches.town (for example) care about scale relative to Twitter? They're successful at serving their niches.

Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work

#56

Post by codewithcheese »

cetra3 wrote: post #44
Kiro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can spin up a node or use a wallet to create an account directly on the Steem blockchain instead of doing it through the Steemit webpage.

If that's an option I haven't found it from a quick glance on the website. I just followed what was there without looking too deeply into it. Maybe if that's something you can do, there should be a clear process written up somewhere

Anon Steem makes it easier for you to create an account anonymously. https://anon.steem.network/

You can create an account through steem connect if you have a friend with steem https://steemit.com/news/@timcliff/new-tool-from-busy-org-cr...

For advanced users you can do the steem account creation transation yourself using the steem cli

Re: Decentralized Social Networks Won't Work

#59

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #51
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here is the challenge: There is a kid born in rural Africa. How could you proof to someone with a smartphone in the US that this human being exists? Better question: What would you even need that proof for?

So that the other side knows they're talking with (and maybe talking about, or sending resources to) a real human being who actually is a rural African kid, and not with a server farm of some sleazy US advertiser who autogenerated a fake profile.

Now, that is mixing up a whole lot of different problems, isn't it?

First of all, "proving that this human being exists" in no way implies "proving that this human being is a kid in rural africa". Let alone "proving that this human being is a kid in rural africa who lacks resources". Now, those absolutely might be legitimate concerns in some scenarios--but how would that be a baseline requirement for a system for social interactions? Last I checked I don't need to bring a credit report to get into a local pub and chat with people either.

Secondly, if you assume a situation where those questions actually were relevant: How is trusting one centralized, not democratically controlled institution to take care of the problem even a solution? If you rely on them, you implicitly also give them the power to effectively declare real people non-existent. If facebook says "this is not a real human being", is that actually reliable information, or could it just be a case of them optimizing their business with the (possibly unintended) side effect of cutting this rural african kid off from resources by incorrectly labeling them "not a human"?

Post reply on HN