4 ms·

Email, the web, DNS, routing and TCP/IP are all decentralised. I think the push is to try and do that for social apps like Facebook as well, instead of having A

Email, the web, DNS, routing and TCP/IP are all decentralised. I think the push is to try and do that for social apps like Facebook as well, instead of having AOL-email style monopolies...

viraptor 17y ago
DNS, routing and TCP/IP are things you never see. They're technically decentralised and they stay like that in practice. Email and web? Not so much really. Everyone serves their little page from their own site. But as soon as you want to interact / share, you're back to hubs like dropbox, facebook, twitter, etc. The data may flow through decentralised links, but it's still coming from FB.
- anthonyb 17y ago
  If I want to view a web page that you've created, I go to a server which you control (or your ISP controls). I don't have to go to web.com and click through to an account that you've created on the web.com service. If I want to send you an email, I talk to my server, my server talks to your server, and you get an email in your inbox. Maybe I use GMail and you use Yahoo, but the underlying protocol is the same, so it doesn't matter. Services like Facebook and Twitter have been written as a closed protocol right from the start, so you're not used to thinking of them in open or interoperable terms, but it looks like it's happening - it's just a question of time and the right impetus. (Perhaps you're thinking of 'decentralised' as being able to host stuff on any computer in some sort of cloud, but I prefer to think of it as 'not controlled by any one entity' - maybe that's where some of the confusion is coming from?)
  - gaius 17y ago
    Right, but you're forgetting one thing. Decentralized works for technical problems, not social problems. People fled from the decentralized alt.* on Usenet to centralized Lifejournal where they had more control over their experience. A decentralized social network would be a sewer.
    - anthonyb 17y ago
      Just like a decentralised web or decentralised email? The idea is to have lots of smaller silos interoperating, rather than a couple of big ones. Just because it's decentralised, doesn't mean that you have to give up control of your bit.
      - gaius 17y ago
        The technical part of it is distributed but "my inbox" is entirely under my control.
        anthonyb 16y ago
        Which is the whole issue - your Facebook "inbox" or "outbox" is not under your control. If it worked more like email or the web, you'd be a lot better off, privacy-wise.

Email, the web, DNS, routing and TCP/IP are all decentralised. I think the push is to try and do that for social apps like Facebook as well, instead of having AOL-email style monopolies...

viraptor 17y ago

DNS, routing and TCP/IP are things you never see. They're technically decentralised and they stay like that in practice. Email and web? Not so much really. Everyone serves their little page from their own site. But as soon as you want to interact / share, you're back to hubs like dropbox, facebook, twitter, etc. The data may flow through decentralised links, but it's still coming from FB.

anthonyb 17y ago
If I want to view a web page that you've created, I go to a server which you control (or your ISP controls). I don't have to go to web.com and click through to an account that you've created on the web.com service. If I want to send you an email, I talk to my server, my server talks to your server, and you get an email in your inbox. Maybe I use GMail and you use Yahoo, but the underlying protocol is the same, so it doesn't matter. Services like Facebook and Twitter have been written as a closed protocol right from the start, so you're not used to thinking of them in open or interoperable terms, but it looks like it's happening - it's just a question of time and the right impetus. (Perhaps you're thinking of 'decentralised' as being able to host stuff on any computer in some sort of cloud, but I prefer to think of it as 'not controlled by any one entity' - maybe that's where some of the confusion is coming from?)
- gaius 17y ago
  Right, but you're forgetting one thing. Decentralized works for technical problems, not social problems. People fled from the decentralized alt.* on Usenet to centralized Lifejournal where they had more control over their experience. A decentralized social network would be a sewer.
  - anthonyb 17y ago
    Just like a decentralised web or decentralised email? The idea is to have lots of smaller silos interoperating, rather than a couple of big ones. Just because it's decentralised, doesn't mean that you have to give up control of your bit.
    - gaius 17y ago
      The technical part of it is distributed but "my inbox" is entirely under my control.
      - anthonyb 16y ago
        Which is the whole issue - your Facebook "inbox" or "outbox" is not under your control. If it worked more like email or the web, you'd be a lot better off, privacy-wise.