5 ms·

Decentralization is more powerful than you think. If I open a social network that is just like Facebook, it will go under. But if it is also properly decentrali

Decentralization is more powerful than you think. If I open a social network that is just like Facebook, it will go under. But if it is also properly decentralized (=federated), meaning you can have account at my site but interact with every Facebook user as if you had an account there, Facebook immediately looses it's network effect. And if I offer an additional silly feature, say let users customize the color of their home page, my decentralized net is at an advantage. Unfortunately, Facebook explicitly forbids that kind of interaction, of course. I see two options how decentralized nets could win: 1) Legislation that forces large sites like Facebook to federate (makes sense if you argue that FB has become infrastructure) or without that: 2) Lots of people try to build federated sites, and fail... but one day, Facebook goes the way of Yahoo and MySpace, and one of the decentralized contenders happens to be the new Facebook by chance.

amelius 10y ago
> Legislation that forces large sites like Facebook to federate This could happen faster than you might think. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ([1]) just needs some updating to current technological standards. Quoted: > Interconnectedness. Since communications services exhibit network effects and positive externalities, new entrants would face barriers to entry if they could not interconnect their networks with those of the incumbent carriers. Thus, another key provision of the 1996 Act sets obligations for incumbent carriers and new entrants to interconnect their networks with one another, imposing additional requirements on the incumbents because they might desire to restrict competitive entry by denying such interconnection or by setting terms, conditions, and rates that could undermine the ability of the new entrants to compete. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Centralised SNs is probably a boon for NSA etc, so I doubt the US will be eager to make new laws. FB is prism for free.
- mxuribe 10y ago
  I'm not so optimistic here. To my knowledge if it hasn't been changed to force interconnectedness of email, I doubt it will be changed only to force interconnectedness of social networks like FB. But i guess we'll see.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Why would it need to be changed to force interconnectedness of email? Email has always been federated.
markvdb 10y ago
2) "One of the decentralized contenders happens to be the new Facebook by chance" is not going to happen. Interesting reading material: http://benkler.org/Pub.html http://benkler.org/Pub.html .
tdkl 10y ago
> Facebook goes the way of Yahoo and MySpace That is already happening. The majority is there only because of the messaging aspect. A whole plethora of messaging services are gaining traffic. Next thing that follow in them is "smart AI" for content with "bots" and then we'll reinvent what Asian messengers already offer for years. But convincing an user of $chat with decentralization and federation is laughable, until : 1) he gets a good reason for current $chat to not be as good, 2) his network flocks away to something else. Don't want to be pissing on anyone's parade here, but this Akasha Project is currently putting a cart before the horse.

amelius 10y ago

> Legislation that forces large sites like Facebook to federate This could happen faster than you might think. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ([1]) just needs some updating to current technological standards. Quoted: > Interconnectedness. Since communications services exhibit network effects and positive externalities, new entrants would face barriers to entry if they could not interconnect their networks with those of the incumbent carriers. Thus, another key provision of the 1996 Act sets obligations for incumbent carriers and new entrants to interconnect their networks with one another, imposing additional requirements on the incumbents because they might desire to restrict competitive entry by denying such interconnection or by setting terms, conditions, and rates that could undermine the ability of the new entrants to compete. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

Chris2048 10y ago
Centralised SNs is probably a boon for NSA etc, so I doubt the US will be eager to make new laws. FB is prism for free.
mxuribe 10y ago
I'm not so optimistic here. To my knowledge if it hasn't been changed to force interconnectedness of email, I doubt it will be changed only to force interconnectedness of social networks like FB. But i guess we'll see.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Why would it need to be changed to force interconnectedness of email? Email has always been federated.

markvdb 10y ago

2) "One of the decentralized contenders happens to be the new Facebook by chance" is not going to happen. Interesting reading material: http://benkler.org/Pub.html http://benkler.org/Pub.html .

tdkl 10y ago

> Facebook goes the way of Yahoo and MySpace That is already happening. The majority is there only because of the messaging aspect. A whole plethora of messaging services are gaining traffic. Next thing that follow in them is "smart AI" for content with "bots" and then we'll reinvent what Asian messengers already offer for years. But convincing an user of $chat with decentralization and federation is laughable, until : 1) he gets a good reason for current $chat to not be as good, 2) his network flocks away to something else. Don't want to be pissing on anyone's parade here, but this Akasha Project is currently putting a cart before the horse.