3 ms·

That theory is nonsense. This API is a tiny thing compared to YouTube and Android app store, two services that provide publishing opportunities to millions.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Publishing on third-party platform, with content limited to what those platforms allow, with monetization limited to what those platforms allow, with constant exposure to random nonsense DMCA takedowns. But I guess the primary culprits of limiting people's ability to be publishers are NATs.
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  Even crappy home routers can port-fwd, the real barrier here is the ubiquitous (in America at least) prohibition on "hosting a server" on a residential internet connection.
  - walterbell 10y ago
    How does that work with WebRTC, e.g. as used in messaging apps?
    - Godel_unicode 10y ago
      You've lost me, what's the connection between "people's ability to be publishers" and WebRTC messaging apps? If you want to publish a WebRTC service, port forwarding will work fine and then you'll be bitten by the no servers restriction.
      - walterbell 10y ago
        A messaging app doesn't have to require port forwarding, it can use a central server to broker the connection between endpoints. In that scenario, the "server" is on the internet, not the residential connection, but data comes from the endpoints.
  - solipsism 10y ago
    You think everyone serving their own services from their residential networks is the solution? Have you thought through the security implications of that? I can just imagine the technical support hours I'd have to log when my dad calls me up because his email server is down or his home storage is encrypted by ransomware.
    - Godel_unicode 10y ago
      Of course I have, that's why I run pfSense, a separate host for my DMZ, a reverse proxy, an IPS, and don't have DNS pointing to it (marginal benefit, but I don't need it so it's off). I'm not arguing that people should do this, I'm arguing that the "NAT is a barrier" position espoused by the "evil ISPs are trying to keep us down, man" camp is incorrect. NAT being necessary because of IPv4 has lead to this really useful low barrier to self-hosting. People who grok security and want to do it can, but it's just arcane enough that lots of people who shouldn't self-host are scared off and go to AWS.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

Publishing on third-party platform, with content limited to what those platforms allow, with monetization limited to what those platforms allow, with constant exposure to random nonsense DMCA takedowns. But I guess the primary culprits of limiting people's ability to be publishers are NATs.

Godel_unicode 10y ago
Even crappy home routers can port-fwd, the real barrier here is the ubiquitous (in America at least) prohibition on "hosting a server" on a residential internet connection.
- walterbell 10y ago
  How does that work with WebRTC, e.g. as used in messaging apps?
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    You've lost me, what's the connection between "people's ability to be publishers" and WebRTC messaging apps? If you want to publish a WebRTC service, port forwarding will work fine and then you'll be bitten by the no servers restriction.
    - walterbell 10y ago
      A messaging app doesn't have to require port forwarding, it can use a central server to broker the connection between endpoints. In that scenario, the "server" is on the internet, not the residential connection, but data comes from the endpoints.
- solipsism 10y ago
  You think everyone serving their own services from their residential networks is the solution? Have you thought through the security implications of that? I can just imagine the technical support hours I'd have to log when my dad calls me up because his email server is down or his home storage is encrypted by ransomware.
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    Of course I have, that's why I run pfSense, a separate host for my DMZ, a reverse proxy, an IPS, and don't have DNS pointing to it (marginal benefit, but I don't need it so it's off). I'm not arguing that people should do this, I'm arguing that the "NAT is a barrier" position espoused by the "evil ISPs are trying to keep us down, man" camp is incorrect. NAT being necessary because of IPv4 has lead to this really useful low barrier to self-hosting. People who grok security and want to do it can, but it's just arcane enough that lots of people who shouldn't self-host are scared off and go to AWS.