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

Avoiding Internet Centralization

mnot.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 111 posts

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#71

Post by rapnie »

In "The Promise and Paradox of Decentralization" [0] I found this quote to be very appealing wrt decentralization:

> "[A]ny decentralized order requires a centralized substrate, and the more decentralized the approach is the more important it is that you can count on the underlying system."

This somewhat counterintuitive notion is often overlooked. In order to facilitate a healthy decentralization effort you need a heck of a collaborative movement to make it a reality and sustain the initiative.

[0] https://www.thediff.co/p/the-promise-and-paradox-of-decentra...

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#72

Post by fiatjaf »

If you read this you might be interested in this protocol which started as an idea for truly censorship-resistance Twitter but it's evolving into a generic suite of many subprotocols that involve interaction between users.

https://github.com/fiatjaf/nostr

Kinda like the "fediverse", but improved in the sense that it is not federated, but also not P2P (because pure p2p doesn't scale).

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#73

Post by fouc »

Avoiding Internet Centralization means.. avoiding browser centralization.. means avoiding the dominant browser stack (currently chrome-based).. means avoiding browser auto-updates.. means discouraging user agent strings & browser/os version fingerprinting.. means avoiding cloudflare..

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#74

Post by dustymcp »

fouc wrote: post #73

Avoiding Internet Centralization means.. avoiding browser centralization.. means avoiding the dominant browser stack (currently chrome-based).. means avoiding browser auto-updates.. means discouraging user agent strings & browser/os version fingerprinting.. means avoiding cloudflare..

But hey those are some of the brogrammers favorite things??

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#75

Post by quinnjh »

tjohns wrote: post #64
DarthNebo wrote: post #61

Decentralisation efforts at this point is very akin to the democratic movements from centuries ago. Governments being reluctant to entertain efforts of taking back control, most recent example being StarLink asked to stop selling in India since they aren't registered as an ISP. The whole point of satellite internet is to avoid geo-control by any government body or local ISP.

The whole point of satellite Internet is to fill in connectivity gaps where you can’t otherwise run high-speed fiber or wireless towers. It does not avoid government control. Even ignoring local legalities, at the very least it will be under the physical control of whichever country hosts the nearest ground-segment station.

And arguably exists to maintain said geocontrol

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#76

Post by quinnjh »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #67
user_named wrote: post #35

I think centralization is just a property of reality. Everything is centralized. Crypto is centralized in certain ways (mining capacity, holdings), capital is centralized to the top 0.1% in every country and so on. It is better to design systems to handle centralization than with the assumption that they will remain decentralized, which would sort of break them.

I disagree. As just one counterexample, consider the mycorrhizal fungal networks that mediate access to nutrients among trees--they've been doing their job without centralized intervention for billions of years. If it seems like everything that we build is centralized, it might just be that we're bad at building things that last.

Or bad at building things that decompose...

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#77

Post by meheleventyone »

user_named wrote: post #35

I think centralization is just a property of reality. Everything is centralized. Crypto is centralized in certain ways (mining capacity, holdings), capital is centralized to the top 0.1% in every country and so on. It is better to design systems to handle centralization than with the assumption that they will remain decentralized, which would sort of break them.

This is something touched on by The Tyranny of Structurelessness and further confirmed by the way companies with a flat internal hierarchy operate. Where there is decentralisation there is implicit power relationships and in the terms of the root essay here platform and indirect centralisation. It’s the why of democracy in anarchist organisation.

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#78

Post by meheleventyone »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #67
user_named wrote: post #35

I think centralization is just a property of reality. Everything is centralized. Crypto is centralized in certain ways (mining capacity, holdings), capital is centralized to the top 0.1% in every country and so on. It is better to design systems to handle centralization than with the assumption that they will remain decentralized, which would sort of break them.

I disagree. As just one counterexample, consider the mycorrhizal fungal networks that mediate access to nutrients among trees--they've been doing their job without centralized intervention for billions of years. If it seems like everything that we build is centralized, it might just be that we're bad at building things that last.

Like the Internet? I actually think we could be good at building these sorts of things if we let go of the profit motive for doing so. History shows that we have been.

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#79

Post by DarthNebo »

tjohns wrote: post #64
DarthNebo wrote: post #61

Decentralisation efforts at this point is very akin to the democratic movements from centuries ago. Governments being reluctant to entertain efforts of taking back control, most recent example being StarLink asked to stop selling in India since they aren't registered as an ISP. The whole point of satellite internet is to avoid geo-control by any government body or local ISP.

The whole point of satellite Internet is to fill in connectivity gaps where you can’t otherwise run high-speed fiber or wireless towers. It does not avoid government control. Even ignoring local legalities, at the very least it will be under the physical control of whichever country hosts the nearest ground-segment station.

I get the connectivity point but surely you would also need unfettered internet access if you live in countries which actively censor/cripple it like Russia, China, NK etc.

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#80

Post by ssss11 »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #40
walrus01 wrote: post #11

Something not really covered is this concept: "Maybe don't let one telecom company acquire too much control". Look at the history of everything that was acquired by either Qwest/CenturyLink or Level3, and then the merger of Level3. You can't tell me that the existence of Lumen, the combined Centurylink-Level3 entity is good for anyone, except for their shareholders. It's the very definition of too much centralization…

Is it? In the UK BT owns all the wires and stuff yet i don't think it majorly affects consumers, nor are their competitiors being crushed.

There are a couple of others who own wires but really only in London (colt, forget the other one)

BT retail (the arm that sells to clients) has strict rules that forbid it from sharing with BT wholesale (the arm that sells to the other ISPs) so BT retail really can’t crush the competitors.. I don’t know the exact arrangement but they’re treated like any other ISP customer I believe

Post reply on HN