Live data from Hacker News

The case for the decentralization of online forums

viksit.com

61–70 of 165 posts

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#61
post #46
post #37

The problem is that people think that decentralization somehow solves the problem. It doesn't. In most cases, like Reddit or Twitter or Mastodon or whatever the issue isn't that something is centralized but that things actually do cost money to build and run . Even decentralized architectures like Mastodon need that - and very few people actually want to pay for it. That is why the various efforts to monetize the con…

This is fundamentally the problem. Far too much money is being extracted from the system by landlords and banks (via mortgages) for no productive labour rather than being spent on actual productive things like internet forums, the actual cost to produce food without subsidies etc. When people have more money to spend because they’re not paying half their take home pay on rent or a mortgage, they’re generally more ame…

The money is being extracted through limiting housing supply and lack of infrastructure investments that support high density (efficient) housing.

Increasing housing supply means decreasing homeowner capital and harming the major investment vehicle of a generation. That's politically untenable. Sadly, the pain will be felt by us and our children until we are able to exercise political power, which will require harming our parents retirements. Maybe the answer is renters unions, how many people can the police evict at once?

Young people don't understand their rent is high because they don't vote or exercise political power.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#62
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before Reddit, almost immediately before, that's what Usenet was for. Google kind of ruined it by hijacking it with Groups, then Reddit took over. Weed need a decentralized equivalent to Usenet.

Usenet was literally decentralized before this was even a buzzword.

You're right. When I think of 'decentralized', and what I meant, was something offering anonymity and resistance to takedown orders, which are things it didn't have real protection against.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#63
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before Reddit, almost immediately before, that's what Usenet was for. Google kind of ruined it by hijacking it with Groups, then Reddit took over. Weed need a decentralized equivalent to Usenet.

Usenet was decentralized, and Google (amazingly) didn't ruin it. Dejanews was the last man standing and they were going bankrupt . Nobody wanted to pony up. It's that simple. Nowadays, a bunch of people have gigabit to their house. Colo is $400/mo for a cabinet and gigabit. 3U servers are under $500 and probably under $200 if you dig. I can go on. You could resurrect Usenet easily , but nobody is doing it. Why? Becau…

Huh, I thought Groups was after Dejanews.

Usenet was decentralized, but not in the current sense of the term IMO. When I think of 'decentralized', and what I meant, was something offering anonymity and resistance to takedown orders, which are things it didn't have real protection against.

I think the free labor issue could be circumvented by users having their own killfiles, and a fediverse approach of only syncing with 'good' servers.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#64

I've never quite wrapped my head around where decentralization ends and federation begins. What's really the difference between the two? Is it a question of degree, or in this example is it only decentralized if individuals in the network own their own content?

Don't worry about definitions. Explain exactly what you're discussing, then introduce the technical term as a shorthand. Even if people had a previous understanding of that term, they'll know what you're talking about, which is all that matters.

I associate arguments about the meaning of the word "decentralization" with pseudo-arguments about how nobody wants to run a server that require "decentralization" to mean that everybody has to run a server.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#65
post #17

We are holding this discussion on a classic, centralized, web1.0 forum which - from my vantage point - is one of the most valuable and enriching forums currently online. What's wrong with HN ? What's wrong with metafilter ? What's wrong with letsrun or doom9 ? The problem is the mistaken notion that these can be big businesses. If you can let go of the economics there is no technical - or usability - hurdle. We know…

> The problem is the mistaken notion that these can be big businesses. HN isn't a business at all. It only loses money, and in return generates some sort of goodwill or authenticity for its owners, who are extraordinarily wealthy. All problems can be ignored if we can always rely on rich people to give us what we want.

and in this case, rich people who have become rich by driving exactly the sort of inexorable growth and commercialization that leads companies down the path reddit has taken.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#66

Moderation and ownership should go hand and hand. Moderators in Reddit essentially have fake sweat equity for their efforts. There has to be a better model and I think decentralization is key.

We need more tools that encode the decision making methods of deliberative bodies, and allow groups to moderate themselves. They should be distributed-first. The only method that we use so far in software is dictatorship.

edit: I think that the Community Notes function of nu twitter is a serious step in the right direction, and there should be more academic discussion about how processes like that could be implemented best, or even updated on the fly to match the changing desires of users.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#67

And then at the end of an article with nice ideas for an open web, there's a link to a Twitter account. Viksit.com has an RSS feed (which I follow now, with my own website that works perfect on an open web), but there's no mention anywhere, also no RSS logo anywhere. Strange, haha.

haha touché. i rolled this site myself via gatsby and forgot to add the RSS icon - thanks for pointing this out.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#69
post #37

The problem is that people think that decentralization somehow solves the problem. It doesn't. In most cases, like Reddit or Twitter or Mastodon or whatever the issue isn't that something is centralized but that things actually do cost money to build and run . Even decentralized architectures like Mastodon need that - and very few people actually want to pay for it. That is why the various efforts to monetize the con…

> Even decentralized architectures like Mastodon need that - and very few people actually want to pay for it. Every Fediverse instance I've used - and I've used quite a few - has been either so small that the total cost is a few dollars a month, or fiscally sustained by donations from users. The problem is when people want to make a profit on their internet community. Then, no amount of community support is enough, b…

The "fediverse" is a already absolutely overrun by bots and spam. Mastadon sites in particular. Nobody is running one of these things for longer than a few months until they just get tired of dealing with it.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#70

A big reason forums centralized in the first place was the maintenance cost. I don't see anything has changed in that regard. Reddit and similar solved it through economics of scale.

How did they "solve" it, from a business sense? Don't they readily admit that they aren't profitable?
Post reply on HN