3 ms·

This is true not just of social networks, but decentralized technology in general. There's incentive structures that make it cheaper and easier for everyone to

by nwah1 9y ago

This is true not just of social networks, but decentralized technology in general. There's incentive structures that make it cheaper and easier for everyone to outsource everything, and outsourcing in the realm of technology has large economies of scale. Even though email is listed as a premier example of decentralization, it is also de facto centralized around gmail and a few other major providers. Although, the open standardization and lack of lock-in that email provides is something to shoot for, and seems to be attainable.

thriftwy 9y ago
Bittorrent works quite well, in fact.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Because BT solved a real-world problem for problem for uploaders and there was a relatively small population of people that needed to be convinced to switch to BitTorrent for the whole community to follow suit. Once a good chunk of uploaders switched to BitTorrent all of the downloaders had to follow them. For social networks you have to convince a critical mass of individual consumers that not only is there a problem with their current situation, that this specific other thing is the solution in a saturated market, and that's it's worth the tradeoffs since it's not quite as polished as what they're using now.
- nwah1 9y ago
  Bittorrent itself may or may not exhibit power law issues. I'm guessing that it does... certainly the ratio of seeders to downloaders has always been bad. But even if that were not true, Bittorrent is just a subcategory of filesharing in general, and it is abundantly obvious that the vast majority of filesharing occurs through centralized networks. (Google, Dropbox, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, etc) So, in this case, Bittorrent is akin to these bespoke decentralized social networks that very few people use, and doesn't contradict the article at all.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    > certainly the ratio of seeders to downloaders has always been bad Not an issue usually. > it is abundantly obvious that the vast majority of filesharing occurs through centralized networks Whoa whoa, that's a strong clause, I remember times when BitTorrent was responsible for 70% of traffic (period). > bespoke decentralized social networks that very few people use You're definitely living in a parallel reality.
    - nwah1 9y ago
      Nowadays, Netflix alone is about 40% of traffic. Throw in youtube and you're already over half. But even pirated content had largely been migrated to centralized streaming services. Megaupload started that trend, although I'm not sure what the leaders are now. When people search for pirated content, they use streaming. When people want to listen to a song, they use youtube or spotify. When people want porn, they use PornHub. I use bittorrent for linux ISOs and such, but I certainly haven't used it for video content in years, and most people I know don't use it.
Chaebixi 9y ago
> Even though email is listed as a premier example of decentralization, it is also de facto centralized around gmail and a few other major providers. A few is a lot more than one, though. Even if 90% of email users are on gmail, you can still run your own sever and interoperate with them. Not so with closed networks like Facebook. A decentralized network with big players is a very different thing than a centralized network.

by nwah1 9y ago

thriftwy 9y ago

Bittorrent works quite well, in fact.

Spivak 9y ago
Because BT solved a real-world problem for problem for uploaders and there was a relatively small population of people that needed to be convinced to switch to BitTorrent for the whole community to follow suit. Once a good chunk of uploaders switched to BitTorrent all of the downloaders had to follow them. For social networks you have to convince a critical mass of individual consumers that not only is there a problem with their current situation, that this specific other thing is the solution in a saturated market, and that's it's worth the tradeoffs since it's not quite as polished as what they're using now.
nwah1 9y ago
Bittorrent itself may or may not exhibit power law issues. I'm guessing that it does... certainly the ratio of seeders to downloaders has always been bad. But even if that were not true, Bittorrent is just a subcategory of filesharing in general, and it is abundantly obvious that the vast majority of filesharing occurs through centralized networks. (Google, Dropbox, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, etc) So, in this case, Bittorrent is akin to these bespoke decentralized social networks that very few people use, and doesn't contradict the article at all.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  > certainly the ratio of seeders to downloaders has always been bad Not an issue usually. > it is abundantly obvious that the vast majority of filesharing occurs through centralized networks Whoa whoa, that's a strong clause, I remember times when BitTorrent was responsible for 70% of traffic (period). > bespoke decentralized social networks that very few people use You're definitely living in a parallel reality.
  - nwah1 9y ago
    Nowadays, Netflix alone is about 40% of traffic. Throw in youtube and you're already over half. But even pirated content had largely been migrated to centralized streaming services. Megaupload started that trend, although I'm not sure what the leaders are now. When people search for pirated content, they use streaming. When people want to listen to a song, they use youtube or spotify. When people want porn, they use PornHub. I use bittorrent for linux ISOs and such, but I certainly haven't used it for video content in years, and most people I know don't use it.

Chaebixi 9y ago

> Even though email is listed as a premier example of decentralization, it is also de facto centralized around gmail and a few other major providers. A few is a lot more than one, though. Even if 90% of email users are on gmail, you can still run your own sever and interoperate with them. Not so with closed networks like Facebook. A decentralized network with big players is a very different thing than a centralized network.