6 ms·

As the article points out, The power google is quite scary. The problem is, we depend on it for too many things. I think the solution is to diversify our usag

As the article points out, The power google is quite scary. The problem is, we depend on it for too many things. I think the solution is to diversify our usage of it. Perhaps, use a different email service, or start using Bing. Find, something else to replace google docs. By diversifying, we reduce our risk. Same for facebook, perhaps start using a different social network and messaging apps. Sure, no one will see my posts, that is until I send them a good old fashion link, to a photo of my cute daughter. we need those "PODS" from Tim Burner's Lee's https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-web/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-w... In this model, all your data belongs to you. Any social network you allow or visit can make use of the data, but it all still belongs to you. And you'll be able to switch from Social network to social network or document provider(docs, spredsheets software) as easily as changing your socks. And we don't have to completely replace GOOG and FB, we should have to offer alternatives and reduce the cost of switching - That's the key to preventing these services from turning Evil. Are there any social networks out there currently that do this yet?

pmlnr 9y ago
I'm hosting my own mail, and running my own server, but I know this is not a viable route for the generic public. Although tools like Yunohost[1] exists for this specific reason. Telegram is nice for instant messaging: it's simple, cross-platform, does well with resources, and run by a non-profit org. Yes, russians might be spying on it. FB/G are spied by others. Meh. (There's Signal as well, but I like my SMS separated.) Google Docs are terrible anyway: slow, lacking lots of features. Libreoffice or (god forbid!), installed M$ Office - and share the docs on, for example, Dropbox. However, it's already very hard to tell people what the web used to be. Just read the entry "I’m 22 years old and what is this."[2] - web devs being in the business for <10 years may not even remember how it was before G or FB. I'd welcome any ideas how to address this. [1]: https://yunohost.org/ https://yunohost.org/ [2]: https://medium.com/@tylrfishr/im-22-years-old-and-what-is-this-d73c2573c254 https://medium.com/@tylrfishr/im-22-years-old-and-what-is-th...
- pascalxus 9y ago
  But, with telegram, I don't see a way to message people on FB messenger. so that means, I'll need to get them to switch: tough sell.
  - pmlnr 9y ago
    I'm aware. If you mention though, that this doesn't suck their battery (or listen in to their conversation) they might think about it, though I'm having a hard time making people care as well.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    Someday someone's gonna make a IM <-> FB gateway.
    - bobalob_wtf 9y ago
      Unfortunately FB will then change the API to block the gateway. It's not in their interest to allow open access to their messaging service. The current status quo means you have to be in their app or on the website to access your contacts and view their ads!
      - rhizome 9y ago
        Absolutely, but it doesn't mean the arms race will never start. :)
- sevenfive 9y ago
  Most people who use telegram haven't heard of Signal, most people who use Signal won't touch telegram with a ten foot pole.
- wongarsu 9y ago
  I pay about $1/month for a decent email provider. There is also still free ad-supported competition out there. That's not the problem why people are all at gmail. The bigger hurdle are the email clients. Both on desktop, android and as webmail, email clients are mostly fairly bad (as in: just as good as the one I had nearly twenty years ago). It's hard to keep up with Gmails UX and features, especially since open source software isn't exactly known for stellar UX.
platz 9y ago
Consumer's can't solve this from the ground up. What's needed is to prevent certain kinds of key acquisitions. The law around acquisitions is too permissive in an age of network effects; acquisition laws were fine pre-internet but don't solve their intended purpose anymore. Normally, the market corrects against the biggest players because the biggest players are slow to change culture and their business. But, acquisitions are the mechanism by which the big players are preventing themselves from being disrupted by smaller, more nimble players. If the big players can simply buy up any new comers (who will want a deserved pay-out for their efforts) on the scene, they maintain complete control regardless of what consumers want. Otherwise, any "alternative practices" you try to foster will simply be crushed, if they ever become a large enough threat. https://stratechery.com/2017/why-facebook-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-buy-tbh/ https://stratechery.com/2017/why-facebook-shouldnt-be-allowe...
- dreamfactored 9y ago
  The problem of monopolies and cartels isn't new. It's systemic and why government enforced market regulation is necessary to protect the interests of citizens. The newer question is perhaps how you effectively nationalise or even just police organisations that are as international in their operations as google or fb. The most effective approach so far is simply to ban them in your country and grow your own as the Chinese have done.
  - platz 9y ago
    The problem now through is that these guys are "effective" monopolies, but they aren't monopolies according to the court's definition because they can always claim that the consumer doesn't have to use their service, they have choice to use some other dinky competitor. The problem is that in the internet age, it is not in controlling supply but in effectively unlimited demand created by combination of zero marginal cost to add customers and network effects of the internet.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
I'm not sure I understand how the PODS would keep your data from becoming centralized. If you allow a service to read data from your PODS, they could simply save it in their own database.
- pascalxus 9y ago
  but because the data belongs to you, you could still jump to another social network or another application, every easily. You wouldn't be locked out of your own data, if FB banned you. And if everyone else was doing it too, you'd still be able to socialize with everyone else by going onto any social network of your choice.
amelius 9y ago
> In this model, all your data belongs to you. I wonder at what point companies decided they could own our data, and we agreed to it. If I write something on a post-it note and give it to my coworker, will 3M rear its head and demand ownership of that information? No, of course not. So why do we allow Google to own our information when we use their software and/or office equipment?
- twblalock 9y ago
  Convenience.
- jpetso 9y ago
  You can approximate the point at which companies decided to own our data by looking at when they transitioned from client-side software with local file storage and open protocols to web services with proprietary protocols. Microsoft is still in the process of transitioning. Google, Facebook and Amazon likely never had a data-agnostic phase in the first place.
- rhizome 9y ago
  I wonder at what point companies decided they could own our data, and we agreed to it. It's been a boiling frog situation, but it's not so much that they decided they could own it as that it's been established that we don't. It helps to think of these companies as scavengers picking up the data we trail behind us on our travels. Even so, by at least the Target breach (2013) the message has been that we have no claim or recourse.

pmlnr 9y ago

I'm hosting my own mail, and running my own server, but I know this is not a viable route for the generic public. Although tools like Yunohost[1] exists for this specific reason. Telegram is nice for instant messaging: it's simple, cross-platform, does well with resources, and run by a non-profit org. Yes, russians might be spying on it. FB/G are spied by others. Meh. (There's Signal as well, but I like my SMS separated.) Google Docs are terrible anyway: slow, lacking lots of features. Libreoffice or (god forbid!), installed M$ Office - and share the docs on, for example, Dropbox. However, it's already very hard to tell people what the web used to be. Just read the entry "I’m 22 years old and what is this."[2] - web devs being in the business for <10 years may not even remember how it was before G or FB. I'd welcome any ideas how to address this. [1]: https://yunohost.org/ https://yunohost.org/ [2]: https://medium.com/@tylrfishr/im-22-years-old-and-what-is-this-d73c2573c254 https://medium.com/@tylrfishr/im-22-years-old-and-what-is-th...

pascalxus 9y ago
But, with telegram, I don't see a way to message people on FB messenger. so that means, I'll need to get them to switch: tough sell.
- pmlnr 9y ago
  I'm aware. If you mention though, that this doesn't suck their battery (or listen in to their conversation) they might think about it, though I'm having a hard time making people care as well.
- rhizome 9y ago
  Someday someone's gonna make a IM <-> FB gateway.
  - bobalob_wtf 9y ago
    Unfortunately FB will then change the API to block the gateway. It's not in their interest to allow open access to their messaging service. The current status quo means you have to be in their app or on the website to access your contacts and view their ads!
    - rhizome 9y ago
      Absolutely, but it doesn't mean the arms race will never start. :)
sevenfive 9y ago
Most people who use telegram haven't heard of Signal, most people who use Signal won't touch telegram with a ten foot pole.
wongarsu 9y ago
I pay about $1/month for a decent email provider. There is also still free ad-supported competition out there. That's not the problem why people are all at gmail. The bigger hurdle are the email clients. Both on desktop, android and as webmail, email clients are mostly fairly bad (as in: just as good as the one I had nearly twenty years ago). It's hard to keep up with Gmails UX and features, especially since open source software isn't exactly known for stellar UX.

platz 9y ago

Consumer's can't solve this from the ground up. What's needed is to prevent certain kinds of key acquisitions. The law around acquisitions is too permissive in an age of network effects; acquisition laws were fine pre-internet but don't solve their intended purpose anymore. Normally, the market corrects against the biggest players because the biggest players are slow to change culture and their business. But, acquisitions are the mechanism by which the big players are preventing themselves from being disrupted by smaller, more nimble players. If the big players can simply buy up any new comers (who will want a deserved pay-out for their efforts) on the scene, they maintain complete control regardless of what consumers want. Otherwise, any "alternative practices" you try to foster will simply be crushed, if they ever become a large enough threat. https://stratechery.com/2017/why-facebook-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-buy-tbh/ https://stratechery.com/2017/why-facebook-shouldnt-be-allowe...

dreamfactored 9y ago
The problem of monopolies and cartels isn't new. It's systemic and why government enforced market regulation is necessary to protect the interests of citizens. The newer question is perhaps how you effectively nationalise or even just police organisations that are as international in their operations as google or fb. The most effective approach so far is simply to ban them in your country and grow your own as the Chinese have done.
- platz 9y ago
  The problem now through is that these guys are "effective" monopolies, but they aren't monopolies according to the court's definition because they can always claim that the consumer doesn't have to use their service, they have choice to use some other dinky competitor. The problem is that in the internet age, it is not in controlling supply but in effectively unlimited demand created by combination of zero marginal cost to add customers and network effects of the internet.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

I'm not sure I understand how the PODS would keep your data from becoming centralized. If you allow a service to read data from your PODS, they could simply save it in their own database.

pascalxus 9y ago
but because the data belongs to you, you could still jump to another social network or another application, every easily. You wouldn't be locked out of your own data, if FB banned you. And if everyone else was doing it too, you'd still be able to socialize with everyone else by going onto any social network of your choice.

amelius 9y ago

> In this model, all your data belongs to you. I wonder at what point companies decided they could own our data, and we agreed to it. If I write something on a post-it note and give it to my coworker, will 3M rear its head and demand ownership of that information? No, of course not. So why do we allow Google to own our information when we use their software and/or office equipment?

twblalock 9y ago
Convenience.
jpetso 9y ago
You can approximate the point at which companies decided to own our data by looking at when they transitioned from client-side software with local file storage and open protocols to web services with proprietary protocols. Microsoft is still in the process of transitioning. Google, Facebook and Amazon likely never had a data-agnostic phase in the first place.
rhizome 9y ago
I wonder at what point companies decided they could own our data, and we agreed to it. It's been a boiling frog situation, but it's not so much that they decided they could own it as that it's been established that we don't. It helps to think of these companies as scavengers picking up the data we trail behind us on our travels. Even so, by at least the Target breach (2013) the message has been that we have no claim or recourse.