3 ms·
It's posts like this that make me think something that resembles IPFS just has to work out, in spite of all the big problems that are yet to be solved. Because
by nickysielicki 10y ago
It's posts like this that make me think something that resembles IPFS just has to work out, in spite of all the big problems that are yet to be solved.
Because I see this, and I think, "Wow, that's cool. I want to listen to some of these." And it just makes so much sense that my computer should be able to compute a hash of that archive and seed it for others, at least as long as it's on my machine.
It makes me think about how recently, we've collectively embraced an abstraction of what it means to share content online, because of the way that social media works. There's the actual transfer of bits, and then the newly-formed social-media advertisement that says, "I endorse this content."
Isn't it a little fucked up that most (all?) of our social networks don't allow for you to share content to other people without implicitly making a statement about it?
Is anyone aware of someone attempting to create social browser history? I already share it with Google. It might be fun to share it with friends, too.
eg: See that a coworker and I both have visited that stackoverflow post a dozen times, or see that my highschool teacher also read that article, or see that my friend listened to the new Radiohead album.
The problem with Facebook, and even with Twitter, is that every single post becomes a statement. I think this is why snapchat is filling a niche -- maybe it's actually not interesting because of impermanence, but maybe it's about the expected notability of each post. On Twitter or Facebook, your posts end up in the feed of someone else, so there's a pressure to not shitpost.
Snapchat doesn't really have that. You can post dumb shit to your story all night, and people just will get tired of looking at it and go to someone else. No harm done.
I wonder if social browser history could work for the same reason. Unfortunately, I think it'd be a hard sell. People see their browser history as private, in spite of the fact that their browser is full of third-party tracking cookies. You'd never get people to download an addon.
- keiferski 10y agoI understand your point, but the phenomenon you're describing is essentially just curation. Social media has simply shifted curation from established sources (newspapers, critics, etc.) to everyone. I would question whether the solution is less curation.
- nickysielicki 10y agoI don't think I was clear enough on how I imagine this working. I wouldn't have it work where you can look at the browser history of any of your friends, or as a feed. Instead, I would use any of my social-news aggregators normally, but if I end up on a page that a friend has also ended up on, It would be fun to be able to see that, and maybe I could leave tiny comments scattered around the web, visible only to my peers who come across it, and we can annotate together. That makes me think about Genius. I remember seeing them work on this a bit, but it was a couple years ago IIRC.
- 33degrees 10y ago> If I end up on a page that a friend has also ended up on, It would be fun to be able to see that, and maybe I could leave tiny comments scattered around the web, visible only to my peers who come across it, and we can annotate together. There are quite a few browser plugins out there that offer this, and I seem to recall a browser that had that functionality built in as well
- j-hernandez 10y agohttps://hypothes.is/ https://hypothes.is/ - Maybe relevant to your interests. Very active project. Although IIRC it is scoped to people who use the service and not to your social graph. I follow the project on github and its very active. The volume of problems that they have to solve to make something like this work for users in potentially any environment is pretty astounding.
- chriswarbo 10y ago> Isn't it a little fucked up that most (all?) of our social networks don't allow for you to share content to other people without implicitly making a statement about it? Related to your IPFS comment, social media is also skewed towards sharing links to content which is hosted elsewhere. "Sharing a video" is really sharing a URL to a Web page containing a video, which may not be there tomorrow. The restrictions on social media services, like Twitter's short message length, and the restrictions on media services which make it non-trivial to save copies, like YouTube hijacking the right-click menu to remove "save as", reinforce each other. Hopefully something like IPFS can disrupt this situation, so that content starts getting shared again, rather than just URLs whose destination is controlled by a single organisation.