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

Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 174 posts

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#91

Post by [deleted] »

crowbahr wrote: post #77
danielrhodes wrote: post #64

This article like so many others perpetuates this idea that Facebook and others are selling your data. You can more or less disprove they are doing this with a little critical thought. Facebook has a disincentive to sell data: if they sold user data, they no longer have exclusive control over it and somebody else can profit off their efforts in its collection. The value of Facebook is they have lots of eyeballs and t…

Except you're exactly wrong in that Facebook has been directly selling data while Google has not. Cambridge Analytica was crunching specific user data, not just buying aggregate targeted ads. That's what this whole uproar is about: they're allowing wholesale data access, not aggregated targets through their API. Google, whom you criticize, is the one actually only selling aggregates.

[deleted]

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#92

Post by CookieMon »

I would like to decentralize, but projects like Masterdon are not the way forward.

If you want to decentralize the servers then you MUST also decouple user accounts from the server they signed up with. Today, if you switch to Masterdon (or perhaps someone you know is running a diaspora node), everything appears to go well until a year from now when the volunteer who was providing the server loses interest or moves on, and your account/photos/journal/social network vanishes. So you start over by creating a new account with another server... tick tick tick, gone. Rinse repeat.

Centralized services don't have this problem - even myspace is still up today, meaning this killer problem isn't on our radar when we evaluate things like Masterdon, or promote it. We don't realize this is a temporary arrangement with a clock ticking down to complete account destruction.

Hubzilla is the only decentralized social media project I've encountered that tackled this problem and sort of solved it (they call it "nomadic identity"). I hear that needing an architecture able to solve this problem was why when Friendica was gaining popularity, the guy behind it realized the whole concept was a lost cause and subsequently started again with what would later be called Hubzilla.

Regardless of whether Hubzilla itself is your cup of tea, separating user accounts from volunteer run servers is necessary before centralized social networks can be challenged, otherwise you just inoculate people against ever leaving the central networks again.

(not to suggest this is the only necessary thing, or only hard nut to crack)

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#93

Post by tmikaeld »

teleclimber wrote: post #81
tmikaeld wrote: post #28

I think that these points have to click before people move from FB: Simple -> Start the app and commicate (on all devices) Minimum features -> Feed, Chat, Groups, Events, Friends Fast -> No one will use a slow App Ownership -> All self-owned data can be removed from everywhere Decentralized -> And no one else can remove your data Privacy -> With simple sharing control So far, I've not seen anything that has all of th…

> Ownership -> All self-owned data can be removed from everywhere > Decentralized -> And no one else can remove your data How do you expect to be able to do that? Decentralization implies your are passing data to peers you do not control. They'll only remove data you ask them to if they are well behaved, but there is no guarantee of that. It's like wanting to be able to delete emails that have already be sent,

Isn't this what torrents and blockchain already do?

You have chards of data on more than one endpoint that sync between eachother - to forcefully remove it you would need to remove it from all of those hosts manually.

But with, let's say, an access/crypto key - you can do it on all of them. Systems like Storj already do this i believe?

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#94

Post by tmikaeld »

zestyping wrote: post #70
tmikaeld wrote: post #28

I think that these points have to click before people move from FB: Simple -> Start the app and commicate (on all devices) Minimum features -> Feed, Chat, Groups, Events, Friends Fast -> No one will use a slow App Ownership -> All self-owned data can be removed from everywhere Decentralized -> And no one else can remove your data Privacy -> With simple sharing control So far, I've not seen anything that has all of th…

"Migrate effortlessly off of Facebook" is arguably more important than any of those. This is where Google+ and all the others failed.

Good point! Unfortunately i can't edit my post any longer.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#95

Post by Lazare »

Barrin92 wrote: post #41
osteele wrote: post #29

The post repeats the myth “There is no promise that a company can make to its users that outweighs the fiduciary duty that obligates them to maximize profits by any means. The only defense of this is legislation and consumer choice.” As a counterpoint, see, for example, [1], that quotes the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision[2]: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the ex…

It might not be strictly true in a legal sense, but it hits close to the mark in the case of facebook et al. Their business is the elimination of privacy and selling off the data and attention of their users. It simply would not be a billion dollar business otherwise. Hobby Lobby or a car manufacturer might find a way to combine civic duties with corporate profits, social media will never be able to. Their entire bus…

> It might not be strictly true in a legal sense, but it hits close to the mark in the case of facebook et al

There's a difference between "we did it because we were legally obligated" and "we did it because Zuckerberg wanted to". The myth of profit maximisation being an absolute legal duty is much too kind to Facebook here; they're not just a victim of our late capitalist system.

> It simply would not be a billion dollar business otherwise.

Right. Which is why their largest shareholder and CEO is going to ensure they do it, not because he's being forced by the spectre of shareholder lawsuits.

> Hobby Lobby or a car manufacturer might find a way to combine civic duties with corporate profits, social media will never be able to.

Certainly not if we continue to give them a pass when they fail to do so.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#96

Post by kwhitefoot »

coldtea wrote: post #88
Barrin92 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously only my personal intuition but I'd wager there's not much of a business in a pay-to-play social network. My FB account is practically on hiatus already and I'd not pay for it. If there would be so much value in a privacy conscious, paid social network that is mass-consumer facing we'd probably have seen it by now.

> Obviously only my personal intuition but I'd wager there's not much of a business in a pay-to-play social network. Then it's not much of a business, period. In my ideal world, we'd only have businesses where the costs are open and direct (e.g. no "user is the product" or selling of personal data, or even "ad-based"). If they can't make it in this way, then, sorry, they don't have a business model.

We would never have newspapers in that case. Very few have ever been able to support themselves on the price the user pays.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#97

Post by black_puppydog »

CookieMon wrote: post #92

I would like to decentralize, but projects like Masterdon are not the way forward. If you want to decentralize the servers then you MUST also decouple user accounts from the server they signed up with. Today, if you switch to Masterdon (or perhaps someone you know is running a diaspora node), everything appears to go well until a year from now when the volunteer who was providing the server loses interest or moves on…

Actually, what you're describing is a problem of federated services. True decentralization has no servers, and thus none of those problems. Take twister for example [1]:

* Identity management via blockchain (one of the use cases where IMHO this is a good, or at least defensible choice).

* Metadata storage in a DHT

* Content storage in torrent swarms

None of this depends on any single peer/server.

[1] http://twister.net.co/

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#98

Post by zaarn »

CookieMon wrote: post #92

I would like to decentralize, but projects like Masterdon are not the way forward. If you want to decentralize the servers then you MUST also decouple user accounts from the server they signed up with. Today, if you switch to Masterdon (or perhaps someone you know is running a diaspora node), everything appears to go well until a year from now when the volunteer who was providing the server loses interest or moves on…

>If you want to decentralize the servers then you MUST also decouple user accounts from the server they signed up with.

Mastodon is working on migrating accounts between servers so that in the exact case you describe people can take their data and move elsewhere.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#99

Post by zaarn »

HIPisTheAnswer wrote: post #68

Grep'd the articles and the comments (thus far) and I'm amazed that nobody has mentioned matrix, Check it out - matrix.org PS: Even more importantly, the Host Identity Protocol. The US army has been using it for over 10 years. If that doesnt speak volumes ...

Matrix still has too many problems. Synapse takes a buttload of memory to run (there is even warning in the README.md), all the clients are a joke and E2E encryption isn't part of the protocol, worse, it's an optional setting, not even default for private chats. Last I checked E2E isn't even available for group chats.

Plus, the author talks about Mastodon, which solves an entirely different problem than matrix to begin with.

Matrix doesn't even support ActivityPub, which is basically the W3C approved standard for federated social activity, it should be easy for Matrix to integrate into the fediverse.

Until then I won't consider matrix as a serious solution to anything.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#100

Post by Tepix »

CookieMon wrote: post #92

I would like to decentralize, but projects like Masterdon are not the way forward. If you want to decentralize the servers then you MUST also decouple user accounts from the server they signed up with. Today, if you switch to Masterdon (or perhaps someone you know is running a diaspora node), everything appears to go well until a year from now when the volunteer who was providing the server loses interest or moves on…

Btw, it's spelled "Mastodon".

> If you want to decentralize the servers then you MUST also decouple user accounts from the server they signed up with.

I somewhat disagree. Email is a decentralized service that works well and its accounts are coupled to the server you signed up with. It merely requires you to do some research when picking a node² or running your own.

Ideally there would be some provision in the protocol that allows you to transfer your content and notify your friends whenever there is an address change. You could do this with a digital signature. You could also bolt on a decentralized identity that's on the blockchain, e.g. register a domain with namecoin (which is completely decentralized) and point it to your current social identity. Problem solved¹.

--

¹ to be fair, registering a domain with namecoin is not trivial at the moment.

² perhaps pick one that requires payment, that creates an obligation to provide the service

Post reply on HN