4 ms·

>it isn't the centralisation of services that are the problem. I strongly disagree. These giant monopolies on different corners of tech caused by centralizatio

>it isn't the centralisation of services that are the problem. I strongly disagree. These giant monopolies on different corners of tech caused by centralization are the very reason we end up having to have these stupid discussions about how everything should work. All of this crap tied up in walled gardens means we just have to cry on the outside with #DeleteFacebook hash tags and hope stuff changes. You claim we need to change the business model. I claim the business model is irrelevant if we instead focus on open source and distributed platforms.

supernovae 9y ago
I agree... With centralization so pervasive in technology today its harder to carve out sustainable business models. Google is largely pay to play for search, content creators are having to leverage twitter, instagram, facebook and pinterest to try and deliver traffic so 90% of our business is derrived from creating value for thse social networks and search engines in hopes of return. It really blows when the majority of your day isn't adding value to the web but trying to play in the perpetual game of fighting for morsels of traffic from the giants. and as we've seen, those with money can manipulate...
- ShabbosGoy 9y ago
  The alternative monetization schemes like Steemit are interesting. Overall, it will lead content that is, on average, better because of monetary rewards/incentives.
- Just_Smith 9y ago
  The reason why it's so hard to build a different type of business model within the web is because the business model precedes the web - and I'm surprised that this hasn't been mentioned already. The original post blamed the business model over centralization, but the whole reason the internet was built to be centralized was to protect profits in the already existing business model for media distribution.
brandon272 9y ago
> You claim we need to change the business model. I claim the business model is irrelevant if we instead focus on open source and distributed platforms. I think the organizational model is relevant. Would we be having the discussions around the most popular social network selling our data and completely disrespecting user privacy if the most popular social network were a non-profit organization? I have to think there is some middle ground between publicly traded megacorp and complete decentralization.
- swlkr 9y ago
  I agree with this. Everyone using the internet today can learn SQL and store all of their personal data in their own SQLite database, with blobs pointing to folders in their hard drives. Which sounds impossible, because it is. The middle ground is instead of a few major players in a given market, we have thousands of players in a market that people can move between easily. Kind of like mastodon, but every node is a different community with different interests. It would be like if we “upgraded” all of the existing forums on the internet today. So instead of Facebook, we should have 10,000 smaller “social networks” all competing. This sounds like a much better outcome than never trying to compete with Facebook or twitter or google. How can these large tech companies today serve the interest of every “user”? They can’t. Decentralization is nice, but you don’t even need it to solve this problem.
  - Dibbles 9y ago
    Which is why we need a social media protocol more than just a new platform.
    - brandon272 9y ago
      I don't really understand what the term "protocol" means in this context or how a protocol can provide the foundations of a social network. Can you elaborate?
      - Dibbles 9y ago
Alex3917 9y ago
> These giant monopolies on different corners of tech caused by centralization are the very reason we end up having to have these stupid discussions about how everything should work. NPR basically has a monopoly on public radio, and yet we don't constantly hear about all the evil stuff they're doing. Why? Because they're not being run as a loss leader to sell missiles and landmines or whatever. Centralization isn't bad as long as the central organization exists to serve the relevant stakeholders in an equitable way.
- extra88 9y ago
  > NPR basically has a monopoly on public radio NPR does not have a monopoly and it's answerable to the member stations so it's not a great example of centralization but I agree that centralization is not inherently bad.
- opportune 9y ago
  "monopoly on public radio" If you think about that phrase for a second you'll realize how ridiculous it sounds.
- JohnBooty 9y ago
  I think you may be using "monopoly" in the colloquial sense of "dominant market share" and not in the more specific sense of "using dominant market share to prevent competition" which is the legal sense. There is nothing about NPR that discourages other public broadcasters. (I'm not sure I'd call Google or FB a monopoly by that definition either, despite their market shares. > and yet we don't constantly hear about all the evil stuff they're doing We do, though, from conservatives.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
majormajor 9y ago
How do you focus on open source and distributed platform when all the money - both investment, and revenue - is in centralized proprietary ones. Money is focus.

supernovae 9y ago

I agree... With centralization so pervasive in technology today its harder to carve out sustainable business models. Google is largely pay to play for search, content creators are having to leverage twitter, instagram, facebook and pinterest to try and deliver traffic so 90% of our business is derrived from creating value for thse social networks and search engines in hopes of return. It really blows when the majority of your day isn't adding value to the web but trying to play in the perpetual game of fighting for morsels of traffic from the giants. and as we've seen, those with money can manipulate...

ShabbosGoy 9y ago
The alternative monetization schemes like Steemit are interesting. Overall, it will lead content that is, on average, better because of monetary rewards/incentives.
Just_Smith 9y ago
The reason why it's so hard to build a different type of business model within the web is because the business model precedes the web - and I'm surprised that this hasn't been mentioned already. The original post blamed the business model over centralization, but the whole reason the internet was built to be centralized was to protect profits in the already existing business model for media distribution.

brandon272 9y ago

> You claim we need to change the business model. I claim the business model is irrelevant if we instead focus on open source and distributed platforms. I think the organizational model is relevant. Would we be having the discussions around the most popular social network selling our data and completely disrespecting user privacy if the most popular social network were a non-profit organization? I have to think there is some middle ground between publicly traded megacorp and complete decentralization.

swlkr 9y ago
I agree with this. Everyone using the internet today can learn SQL and store all of their personal data in their own SQLite database, with blobs pointing to folders in their hard drives. Which sounds impossible, because it is. The middle ground is instead of a few major players in a given market, we have thousands of players in a market that people can move between easily. Kind of like mastodon, but every node is a different community with different interests. It would be like if we “upgraded” all of the existing forums on the internet today. So instead of Facebook, we should have 10,000 smaller “social networks” all competing. This sounds like a much better outcome than never trying to compete with Facebook or twitter or google. How can these large tech companies today serve the interest of every “user”? They can’t. Decentralization is nice, but you don’t even need it to solve this problem.
- Dibbles 9y ago
  Which is why we need a social media protocol more than just a new platform.
  - brandon272 9y ago
    I don't really understand what the term "protocol" means in this context or how a protocol can provide the foundations of a social network. Can you elaborate?
    - Dibbles 9y ago

Alex3917 9y ago

> These giant monopolies on different corners of tech caused by centralization are the very reason we end up having to have these stupid discussions about how everything should work. NPR basically has a monopoly on public radio, and yet we don't constantly hear about all the evil stuff they're doing. Why? Because they're not being run as a loss leader to sell missiles and landmines or whatever. Centralization isn't bad as long as the central organization exists to serve the relevant stakeholders in an equitable way.

extra88 9y ago
> NPR basically has a monopoly on public radio NPR does not have a monopoly and it's answerable to the member stations so it's not a great example of centralization but I agree that centralization is not inherently bad.
opportune 9y ago
"monopoly on public radio" If you think about that phrase for a second you'll realize how ridiculous it sounds.
JohnBooty 9y ago
I think you may be using "monopoly" in the colloquial sense of "dominant market share" and not in the more specific sense of "using dominant market share to prevent competition" which is the legal sense. There is nothing about NPR that discourages other public broadcasters. (I'm not sure I'd call Google or FB a monopoly by that definition either, despite their market shares. > and yet we don't constantly hear about all the evil stuff they're doing We do, though, from conservatives.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

majormajor 9y ago

How do you focus on open source and distributed platform when all the money - both investment, and revenue - is in centralized proprietary ones. Money is focus.