3 ms·

> It's starting to hit me that we had a locally-oriented, peer-to-peer, decentralised world at one time, and it was decidedly lo-tech. These are almost exactly

by tomc1985 9y ago

> It's starting to hit me that we had a locally-oriented, peer-to-peer, decentralised world at one time, and it was decidedly lo-tech. These are almost exactly the words I am looking for. We had paradise, and then we threw it away with the same artifice we used to build it in the first place.

dredmorbius 9y ago
I'm not sure I'd describe it as "paradise", though I'm also not sure I'd describe it as "not paradise". Reserved judgement there. But I will note that preindustrial life had many of the characteristics that decentralisation and peer-to-peer advocates seem to promote. Which gives a few opportunities for consideration: 1. Can technology provide that same level of decentralisation? Evidence is suggesting it does precisely the opposite, at least to date. 2. What are the other characteristics of decentralised / p2p systems? Are they inherently feudalistic? If not, what are the other possible structures? Are they inherently anti-technological? 3. Is "bad hygiene" necessary for decentralisation? That is, explicitly creating dysfunction in systems which are too large? I'm still developing that thought, though there's a Mastodon tootstorm here: https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/36518392 https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/36518392 4. Are there ways of introducing necessary degrees of "bad hygiene" without bringing the entire high-technology regime crashing down? 5. Is p2p / decentralisation good, and if so, why? Or why not?
- tomc1985 9y ago
  I was referring more to the decentralized, p2p phase of technology that we woke up from about 10-15 years ago. That world only existed because bandwidth to the net was so constrained. Before that world we had mainframes, and had to deal with exactly the same kind of centralized control bullshit as before. I am learning that technology is only empowering when the only entity capable of wielding influence over it is it's user. In all other cases you're just somebody else's pawn. When I was young technology was my escape from that reality of pawnship, and I'm furious that this is no longer the case.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Thanks for the clarification, thogh I think you can trace that pattern back far further. And, too, there weere limitations to the earlier era.... Good point on user-owner-controller scoping. There may be something there.

dredmorbius 9y ago

I'm not sure I'd describe it as "paradise", though I'm also not sure I'd describe it as "not paradise". Reserved judgement there. But I will note that preindustrial life had many of the characteristics that decentralisation and peer-to-peer advocates seem to promote. Which gives a few opportunities for consideration: 1. Can technology provide that same level of decentralisation? Evidence is suggesting it does precisely the opposite, at least to date. 2. What are the other characteristics of decentralised / p2p systems? Are they inherently feudalistic? If not, what are the other possible structures? Are they inherently anti-technological? 3. Is "bad hygiene" necessary for decentralisation? That is, explicitly creating dysfunction in systems which are too large? I'm still developing that thought, though there's a Mastodon tootstorm here: https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/36518392 https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/36518392 4. Are there ways of introducing necessary degrees of "bad hygiene" without bringing the entire high-technology regime crashing down? 5. Is p2p / decentralisation good, and if so, why? Or why not?

tomc1985 9y ago
I was referring more to the decentralized, p2p phase of technology that we woke up from about 10-15 years ago. That world only existed because bandwidth to the net was so constrained. Before that world we had mainframes, and had to deal with exactly the same kind of centralized control bullshit as before. I am learning that technology is only empowering when the only entity capable of wielding influence over it is it's user. In all other cases you're just somebody else's pawn. When I was young technology was my escape from that reality of pawnship, and I'm furious that this is no longer the case.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Thanks for the clarification, thogh I think you can trace that pattern back far further. And, too, there weere limitations to the earlier era.... Good point on user-owner-controller scoping. There may be something there.