5 ms·

Adoption. Users want convenience. They want to click a thing and go, not install a desktop app, configure it, learn about the networking model, etc. Then when

Adoption. Users want convenience. They want to click a thing and go, not install a desktop app, configure it, learn about the networking model, etc. Then when we've all sunk into all these convenient cloud services and "easy to use" disposable devices, we'll have lost all of our privacy and power. The corporations will get regulated, and then the government will have access and control of the systems. And yet we'll have people argue that these open source and federated/distributed systems are "too confusing" and "not practical" and that we shouldn't even try to avoid this future.

nine_k 9y ago
«In technology, I believe it comes down to the power dynamics of convenience. To create convenience—particularly the automated convenience technology trades in—someone else must make our choices for us. In other words: the less you have to do, the less say you have.» (From https://www.frankchimero.com/writing/the-webs-grain/ https://www.frankchimero.com/writing/the-webs-grain/)
ezdiy 9y ago
>Then when we've all sunk into all these convenient cloud services and "easy to use" disposable devices, we'll have lost all of our privacy and power. Convenience can be engineered into P2P, too. With Bitcoin, people definitely get the convenience of unregulated speculative asset they wanted (presumably because real estate is even more obtuse than bitcoin). With Bittorrent, people definitely get the convenience of having access to obscure content (though netflix is great counterexample to it). > And yet we'll have people argue that these open source and federated/distributed systems are "too confusing" and "not practical" and that we shouldn't even try to avoid this future. I think best route would be that of Linux vs Android. Which has already happened to a certain degree with Mastodon for instance - someone "privatizes" the underlying open fabric and puts a nice "convenience trap" on top of it to "attract adoption". The issue here is mostly that investors in such an endeavor are seeking total control of the userbase, an engineered artificial "inconvenience of switching platform". Internet behemoths should not be called out on "dangers of getting regulated and handing control to the government" (frankly, anything can happen, not just that), but on keeping their platforms un-interoperable on purpose in a bid to attain a monopoly through networking effects, burdening the entrapped users with "inconvenience of limited frontend choice". They should be called out the same way we called out Microsoft back then, or say, Comcast now.
api 9y ago
I don't buy that it's impossible to deliver decentralization and usability. It just requires a lot of developer effort. The real problem is that everything has to be free. That means there's no money to pay developers to do the stuff that is not fun. UI/UX is a painful slog through a long tail of tiny little issues, not to mention many iterations on design. Developers don't do that unless they're getting paid.
- larrydag 9y ago
  Coming up with new an innovative ways of doing things is reward in and of itself. Examples are Wozniak with Apple I, Berners-Lee with HTTP server. Breakthroughs lead to big things. I think we are on the precipice of a decentralized network paradigm shift.

nine_k 9y ago

«In technology, I believe it comes down to the power dynamics of convenience. To create convenience—particularly the automated convenience technology trades in—someone else must make our choices for us. In other words: the less you have to do, the less say you have.» (From https://www.frankchimero.com/writing/the-webs-grain/ https://www.frankchimero.com/writing/the-webs-grain/)

ezdiy 9y ago

>Then when we've all sunk into all these convenient cloud services and "easy to use" disposable devices, we'll have lost all of our privacy and power. Convenience can be engineered into P2P, too. With Bitcoin, people definitely get the convenience of unregulated speculative asset they wanted (presumably because real estate is even more obtuse than bitcoin). With Bittorrent, people definitely get the convenience of having access to obscure content (though netflix is great counterexample to it). > And yet we'll have people argue that these open source and federated/distributed systems are "too confusing" and "not practical" and that we shouldn't even try to avoid this future. I think best route would be that of Linux vs Android. Which has already happened to a certain degree with Mastodon for instance - someone "privatizes" the underlying open fabric and puts a nice "convenience trap" on top of it to "attract adoption". The issue here is mostly that investors in such an endeavor are seeking total control of the userbase, an engineered artificial "inconvenience of switching platform". Internet behemoths should not be called out on "dangers of getting regulated and handing control to the government" (frankly, anything can happen, not just that), but on keeping their platforms un-interoperable on purpose in a bid to attain a monopoly through networking effects, burdening the entrapped users with "inconvenience of limited frontend choice". They should be called out the same way we called out Microsoft back then, or say, Comcast now.

api 9y ago

I don't buy that it's impossible to deliver decentralization and usability. It just requires a lot of developer effort. The real problem is that everything has to be free. That means there's no money to pay developers to do the stuff that is not fun. UI/UX is a painful slog through a long tail of tiny little issues, not to mention many iterations on design. Developers don't do that unless they're getting paid.

larrydag 9y ago
Coming up with new an innovative ways of doing things is reward in and of itself. Examples are Wozniak with Apple I, Berners-Lee with HTTP server. Breakthroughs lead to big things. I think we are on the precipice of a decentralized network paradigm shift.