8 ms·

This sounds like what I wanted from GNU Social when I first joined over a year ago. GNU Social/Mastodon is a fun idea, but it falls apart when you realise that

by chc4 10y ago

This sounds like what I wanted from GNU Social when I first joined over a year ago. GNU Social/Mastodon is a fun idea, but it falls apart when you realise that you still don't own your content and it's functionally impossible to switch nodes like it advertised, along with federation being a giant mess. I tried to switch what server my account was on halfway through my GNU Social life, and you just can't; all your followers are on the old server, all your tweets, and there is no way to say "I'm still the same person". I didnt realise I wanted cryptographic identity and accounts until I tried to actually use the alternative. That's also part of the interest I have in something like Urbit, which has an identity system centered on public keys forming a web of trust, which also lets you have a reputation system and ban spammers which you can't do easily with a pure DHT.

rocky1138 10y ago
Not being able to switch nodes pushes you to try and host your own instead. That's what I've done. IMO we should instead be looking at packaging a self-hosted version into a native Windows and Mac app. Run it in the background and everything's done.
- s_kilk 10y ago
  And then your laptop gets stolen and everything's gone.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    Or you shut your PC down when you leave the house and then want to access your network from your phone.
    - rocky1138 10y ago
      How about this: you buy a physical device at Wal-Mart for $29.99, plug it in, hook it up to your wifi and leave it plugged into an outlet. It's got Mastodon or GNU Social on it and could look like this, but branded: http://thegadgetflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SmartPlug-01.jpg http://thegadgetflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SmartPlu...
      - myrion 10y ago
        Then I have yet another device permanently plugged in and running, at a time where I and frankly all of us should try to reduce our energy consumption.
        shrimp_emoji 10y ago
        Ha. Good joke.
        cryptarch 10y ago
        A Raspberry Pi is very low-powered though, it's completely insignificant compared to the power used by the webservices you use daily.
        lolc 10y ago
        I disagree. Google uses 1/4GW worldwide and that's less than a watt per user.
        Zaak 10y ago
        Where does that number come from? One data center * 24 backup generators * 3 MW each = 72 MW per data center. Four of those = 288 MW > 1/4GW. Google has more than three data centers.
        lolc 10y ago
        Ah yes, that number is from 2011, published by Google. Can't find the original. But it was widely reported[1]. Assuming that they're doubling energy consumption every year they'd have reached 8GW in 2016. That's 8W per user if we assume 1 billion users. Energy usage of a Raspberry is not insignificant relative to even this. Doing things at scale is vastly more efficient. And only a subset of Google services can be relegated to a Raspberry. Even if you host your own mails, are you ready to ditch the Google search index and Youtube? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/technology/google-details-and-defends-its-use-of-electricity.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/technology/google-details-...
    - gknoy 10y ago
      SSB's central premise -- distributed users, making an ad-hoc network connection whenever they are physically close, or perhaps have some network connection -- bakes in an assumption that a user's ability to connect to the network is sporadic. It seems like the system would work just as well for people who decide to turn their system off when they go to work, or are on a sailboat. Of course it's not convenient in the same way that always-on social networks are, but that seems to be specifically not the point of SSB.
  - rocky1138 10y ago
    Make backups. How is this any different than saving photos just in case you spill water on your laptop keyboard?
    - ISL 10y ago
      It's different precisely because most social/cloud networks abstract away backups. Very few people have considered whether or not they should attempt to back up their Facebook account. Same's true for Flickr, Twitter, and Gmail.
      - rocky1138 10y ago
        Maybe they should?
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Maybe but the person's point stands. Facebook has multiple datacenters with probably some kind of backups. It keeps things for years at a time even when it doesn't need to. It likes to because it helps the business model. Hardly anyone's pics and stuff will disappear. Compare that to their experience at home with personal gear. Many like the convenience and reliability of Facebook over their own technical skills or efforts. You'd have to convince those people... a shitload of people... that they should start handling IT on their own. Also note that there's many good, smart, interesting, and so on people that simply don't do tech. Anyone filtering non-technical or procrastinating people in a service will be throwing out lots of folks whose company they might otherwise enjoy. So, these kinds of issues are worth exploring when trying to build a better social network.
        bigbugbag 10y ago
        It only takes one time of having your account locked by facebook or google and said people are automatically convinced of the obvious advantage of being in control of your own data. Same with backups, lose your data to drive failure or theft once and suddenly having a backup strategy becomes a priority. But as long as they have not been bitten once they don't care enough to actually do something proactive.
  - rakoo 10y ago
    If I understand scuttlebut correctly, your stuff is broadcasted to whoever it might concern and the pubs. If you still have your private key, you should still be able to access whatever is in the ether, right ? You somehow become the recipient of your own messages. Only the thief will also have access to your private key, so the account can be considered compromised.
    - AljoschaMeyer 10y ago
      Yep, that's how it works.
    - platz 10y ago
      so, data breach means all your private data is irrevocably publicized. What percentage of users do you think would be affected by such cases? If it's something over 0.001%, it's a huge problem for a social network. Sites like Coinbase and Github exist because they re-centralize distributed systems — users don't trust themselves to host their own data securely. Alternately, if this isn't a problem, why don't users simply host all their own infrastructure for existing tech problems today ? I'm sure someone capable of living in the Mojave Desert is capable of hosting their own infrastructure - is this network simply for those people, or is it also for journalists, trans people, and HR professionals?
    - staltz 10y ago
      This is a valid point and I don't trust my computer. I would trust, however, a Ledger Wallet http://ledgerwallet.com/ http://ledgerwallet.com/ and theoretically and economically it's feasible to have a Ledger wallet app to sign every SSB message. This would be awesome to have.
  - matthewaveryusa 10y ago
    And then you remember you set up an automated encrypted backup to the cloud and thank your past-self. Now is the time to do it if you're not doing this: https://msol.io/blog/tech/dirt-cheap-client-encrypted-online-backups-with-raspberry-pi/ https://msol.io/blog/tech/dirt-cheap-client-encrypted-online...
    - bigbugbag 10y ago
      Why, oh why do we have smart individuals replacing internet with the word for the visual analogy we used to represent the internet to not knowing better people in position of power ? This is not a damn cloud ! This a remote computer you can access over the internet. Can we stop with this use of marketing lingo please ?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - nicky0 10y ago
        Sorry buddy, that ship has already sailed. Terms become popular because they are useful. We all know cloud means "a remote computer accessed over the internet", but that is rather cumbersome phrase. "Cloud" says it in 5 characters. Can you suggest a better term?
        ghkbrew 10y ago
        As a fan of both linguistic games and playing devil's advocate, how about: "server"
        gyros 10y ago
        6 characters, sorry ;-)
        Vendan 10y ago
        "host"... 4 characters, beats cloud...?
- crypt0x 10y ago
  > Not being able to switch nodes pushes you to try and host your own instead. And you just use it for yourself? well, ok... but at that point you could also use a fully decent system.
  - rocky1138 10y ago
    You can follow and reply to any one on any node from your own system. Your feed is populated from people on any node you follow.
- hmhrex 10y ago
  This is what I want. I've been wanting to build something like this for a long time. Something where I own my data. I can back it up and if my laptop gets stolen, I just import my data on a new machine and we're good to go. The challenges that I see: - Making it easy for any user to get up and running. - De-authenticating old devices. - Making it available from any mobile device.
  - rocky1138 10y ago
    I bought a VPS from CloudAtCost for a one-time fee of $35. Set it up with nginx and GNU Social and pretty much haven't looked back since. My instance is https://kwat.chat https://kwat.chat. Ideally, the end solution would be dead simple. Download the Windows app, run it, put your credit card in if you need a URL registered, and it does everything, including daily backups to a folder on your disk.
- jaccarmac 10y ago
  That's basically the aim of Urbit. An instance you control that you can connect to other services to tie those external identities together.
  - Nition 10y ago
    Sounds a lot like Diaspora as well.
sp332 10y ago
It seems like you could get a some of the efficiency gains of having lots of people on one node, but avoid the difficulty of moving, by setting up a new node for each person even if they are hosted on the same box. That way you can pick up the whole node with your account and move it, instead of trying to move your account from one node to another.
SolarNet 10y ago
I mean, my view on the switching nodes thing is. It's not like you can just switch emails. Sure you can install a shim in there to forward everything, but there is no way to actually switch it. And that is the design GNU social uses.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- majewsky 10y ago
  Yeah, and that's also a pain point with email.
  - SolarNet 10y ago
    It's a pain point with the entire design of federated services. On the other hand, the pain point with the monolithic services design of Facebook is I can't even talk to people on other services so... I'd rather be able to email everybody and have it be annoying to switch than be able to only email people on my chosen provider (and then have to make an account on every service anyway).
czeidler 10y ago
The Fejoa project (https://fejoa.org https://fejoa.org) actually targets this problem. It aims to make it possible for users to change their hosting server without losing their contacts.
runeks 10y ago
> [...] which also lets you have a reputation system and ban spammers which you can't do easily with a pure DHT. Sounds interesting. How can you ban spammers when they can just create a new public key/identity if their old one is banned? And also, what does "banning" comprise, in a decentralized social network? I would assume it would be sufficient to just "unfollow" that particular identity.

by chc4 10y ago

rocky1138 10y ago

Not being able to switch nodes pushes you to try and host your own instead. That's what I've done. IMO we should instead be looking at packaging a self-hosted version into a native Windows and Mac app. Run it in the background and everything's done.

s_kilk 10y ago
And then your laptop gets stolen and everything's gone.
- freehunter 10y ago
  Or you shut your PC down when you leave the house and then want to access your network from your phone.
  - rocky1138 10y ago
    How about this: you buy a physical device at Wal-Mart for $29.99, plug it in, hook it up to your wifi and leave it plugged into an outlet. It's got Mastodon or GNU Social on it and could look like this, but branded: http://thegadgetflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SmartPlug-01.jpg http://thegadgetflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SmartPlu...
    - myrion 10y ago
      Then I have yet another device permanently plugged in and running, at a time where I and frankly all of us should try to reduce our energy consumption.
      - shrimp_emoji 10y ago
        Ha. Good joke.
      - cryptarch 10y ago
        A Raspberry Pi is very low-powered though, it's completely insignificant compared to the power used by the webservices you use daily.
        lolc 10y ago
        I disagree. Google uses 1/4GW worldwide and that's less than a watt per user.
        Zaak 10y ago
        Where does that number come from? One data center * 24 backup generators * 3 MW each = 72 MW per data center. Four of those = 288 MW > 1/4GW. Google has more than three data centers.
        lolc 10y ago
        Ah yes, that number is from 2011, published by Google. Can't find the original. But it was widely reported[1]. Assuming that they're doubling energy consumption every year they'd have reached 8GW in 2016. That's 8W per user if we assume 1 billion users. Energy usage of a Raspberry is not insignificant relative to even this. Doing things at scale is vastly more efficient. And only a subset of Google services can be relegated to a Raspberry. Even if you host your own mails, are you ready to ditch the Google search index and Youtube? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/technology/google-details-and-defends-its-use-of-electricity.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/technology/google-details-...
  - gknoy 10y ago
    SSB's central premise -- distributed users, making an ad-hoc network connection whenever they are physically close, or perhaps have some network connection -- bakes in an assumption that a user's ability to connect to the network is sporadic. It seems like the system would work just as well for people who decide to turn their system off when they go to work, or are on a sailboat. Of course it's not convenient in the same way that always-on social networks are, but that seems to be specifically not the point of SSB.
- rocky1138 10y ago
  Make backups. How is this any different than saving photos just in case you spill water on your laptop keyboard?
  - ISL 10y ago
    It's different precisely because most social/cloud networks abstract away backups. Very few people have considered whether or not they should attempt to back up their Facebook account. Same's true for Flickr, Twitter, and Gmail.
    - rocky1138 10y ago
      Maybe they should?
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Maybe but the person's point stands. Facebook has multiple datacenters with probably some kind of backups. It keeps things for years at a time even when it doesn't need to. It likes to because it helps the business model. Hardly anyone's pics and stuff will disappear. Compare that to their experience at home with personal gear. Many like the convenience and reliability of Facebook over their own technical skills or efforts. You'd have to convince those people... a shitload of people... that they should start handling IT on their own. Also note that there's many good, smart, interesting, and so on people that simply don't do tech. Anyone filtering non-technical or procrastinating people in a service will be throwing out lots of folks whose company they might otherwise enjoy. So, these kinds of issues are worth exploring when trying to build a better social network.
        bigbugbag 10y ago
        It only takes one time of having your account locked by facebook or google and said people are automatically convinced of the obvious advantage of being in control of your own data. Same with backups, lose your data to drive failure or theft once and suddenly having a backup strategy becomes a priority. But as long as they have not been bitten once they don't care enough to actually do something proactive.
- rakoo 10y ago
  If I understand scuttlebut correctly, your stuff is broadcasted to whoever it might concern and the pubs. If you still have your private key, you should still be able to access whatever is in the ether, right ? You somehow become the recipient of your own messages. Only the thief will also have access to your private key, so the account can be considered compromised.
  - AljoschaMeyer 10y ago
    Yep, that's how it works.
  - platz 10y ago
    so, data breach means all your private data is irrevocably publicized. What percentage of users do you think would be affected by such cases? If it's something over 0.001%, it's a huge problem for a social network. Sites like Coinbase and Github exist because they re-centralize distributed systems — users don't trust themselves to host their own data securely. Alternately, if this isn't a problem, why don't users simply host all their own infrastructure for existing tech problems today ? I'm sure someone capable of living in the Mojave Desert is capable of hosting their own infrastructure - is this network simply for those people, or is it also for journalists, trans people, and HR professionals?
  - staltz 10y ago
    This is a valid point and I don't trust my computer. I would trust, however, a Ledger Wallet http://ledgerwallet.com/ http://ledgerwallet.com/ and theoretically and economically it's feasible to have a Ledger wallet app to sign every SSB message. This would be awesome to have.
- matthewaveryusa 10y ago
  And then you remember you set up an automated encrypted backup to the cloud and thank your past-self. Now is the time to do it if you're not doing this: https://msol.io/blog/tech/dirt-cheap-client-encrypted-online-backups-with-raspberry-pi/ https://msol.io/blog/tech/dirt-cheap-client-encrypted-online...
  - bigbugbag 10y ago
    Why, oh why do we have smart individuals replacing internet with the word for the visual analogy we used to represent the internet to not knowing better people in position of power ? This is not a damn cloud ! This a remote computer you can access over the internet. Can we stop with this use of marketing lingo please ?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - nicky0 10y ago
      Sorry buddy, that ship has already sailed. Terms become popular because they are useful. We all know cloud means "a remote computer accessed over the internet", but that is rather cumbersome phrase. "Cloud" says it in 5 characters. Can you suggest a better term?
      - ghkbrew 10y ago
        As a fan of both linguistic games and playing devil's advocate, how about: "server"
        gyros 10y ago
        6 characters, sorry ;-)
        Vendan 10y ago
        "host"... 4 characters, beats cloud...?
crypt0x 10y ago
> Not being able to switch nodes pushes you to try and host your own instead. And you just use it for yourself? well, ok... but at that point you could also use a fully decent system.
- rocky1138 10y ago
  You can follow and reply to any one on any node from your own system. Your feed is populated from people on any node you follow.
hmhrex 10y ago
This is what I want. I've been wanting to build something like this for a long time. Something where I own my data. I can back it up and if my laptop gets stolen, I just import my data on a new machine and we're good to go. The challenges that I see: - Making it easy for any user to get up and running. - De-authenticating old devices. - Making it available from any mobile device.
- rocky1138 10y ago
  I bought a VPS from CloudAtCost for a one-time fee of $35. Set it up with nginx and GNU Social and pretty much haven't looked back since. My instance is https://kwat.chat https://kwat.chat. Ideally, the end solution would be dead simple. Download the Windows app, run it, put your credit card in if you need a URL registered, and it does everything, including daily backups to a folder on your disk.
jaccarmac 10y ago
That's basically the aim of Urbit. An instance you control that you can connect to other services to tie those external identities together.
- Nition 10y ago
  Sounds a lot like Diaspora as well.

sp332 10y ago

It seems like you could get a some of the efficiency gains of having lots of people on one node, but avoid the difficulty of moving, by setting up a new node for each person even if they are hosted on the same box. That way you can pick up the whole node with your account and move it, instead of trying to move your account from one node to another.

SolarNet 10y ago

I mean, my view on the switching nodes thing is. It's not like you can just switch emails. Sure you can install a shim in there to forward everything, but there is no way to actually switch it. And that is the design GNU social uses.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
majewsky 10y ago
Yeah, and that's also a pain point with email.
- SolarNet 10y ago
  It's a pain point with the entire design of federated services. On the other hand, the pain point with the monolithic services design of Facebook is I can't even talk to people on other services so... I'd rather be able to email everybody and have it be annoying to switch than be able to only email people on my chosen provider (and then have to make an account on every service anyway).

czeidler 10y ago

The Fejoa project (https://fejoa.org https://fejoa.org) actually targets this problem. It aims to make it possible for users to change their hosting server without losing their contacts.

runeks 10y ago

> [...] which also lets you have a reputation system and ban spammers which you can't do easily with a pure DHT. Sounds interesting. How can you ban spammers when they can just create a new public key/identity if their old one is banned? And also, what does "banning" comprise, in a decentralized social network? I would assume it would be sufficient to just "unfollow" that particular identity.