7 ms·

Look, the truth of the matter is we opened the floodgates to computing for the masses too quickly without the proper protections and training. So up until about

Look, the truth of the matter is we opened the floodgates to computing for the masses too quickly without the proper protections and training. So up until about ~2000 it was mostly just the geeks using computers. Suddenly though, with the nice gui of Windows and Mac, the kind of users who used their cd tray as a coffee cup holder exponentially multiplied... and thus /r/talesfromtechsupport was born. They never learned to control and own their systems. Then those users start buying other computers, with software they didn't have the option to control, in the form of smartphones. Now there are huge swaths of users who are so used to being stuck in a user prison they don't own or control that they think it's normal! It's not. Join the GNU+Linux revolution today! So the problem with fb and twitter etc, is that they took what would have been a great model (individual websites) and tried to force everyone on their platform and then find various ways to lock them there... and now with all the backlash there is a growing awakening of computing freedom, but the problem is they keep thinking of blockchain or meshnet style decentraliztion to fix the problem, when the real problem is one of ownership. So in my opinion we need a good copyleft foss federation tech and people to own their own data. The internet isn't fully decentralized... it's more of a heirarchical starspoke topology, and it's high time SV and the rest wakeup from buzzword bingo of decentralization. (If I hear one more story about how we don't need servers cause we're going to the cloud I'm going to explode, for example). This is also why I think something like the freedombox is probably the closest thing to what the future lookes like.

pier25 8y ago
It's not a matter of freedom or control, it's about convenience.
- choward 8y ago
  People don't actually realize that the convenience comes with a cost though because they haven't been exposed to the other end of the spectrum.
  - pier25 8y ago
    Difficult to say, but I'd say convenience defeats everything (for most people) even if they understand what is going on.
the_greyd 8y ago
You haven't answered the fundamental question: How are they going to make money? The internet can be decentralized, and everything can be FOSS, but how is that going to make money for companies? If it isn't making money why will anyone bother changing their existing model? Unless we change the rules, we are not going to get different results. I wish there was a sustainable way to fund new tech by people. The growth we see in tech right now is manifested with this massive surveillance capitalism. Think about all the shiny tech/open source libraries coming out of google and facebook, now advertisements are what funds that. The line "All great civilizations were built on back of slaves" comes to mind. Our data and privacy is what we lose, for us to achieve this massive technological prowess.
- coconutrandom 8y ago
  They make money on hosting and compete on price and UI. But to be blunt, nothing can stop users from re-centralizing to the cheapest/fastest/easiest system regardless of how decentralized the protocol.
- rokhayakebe 8y ago
  I wish there was a sustainable way to fund new tech by people. We pay for our phone, electricity, connection service. We even pay for games. Yet we don't want to pay for the tools that help us manage our social networks. Or perhaps noone has dared to launch a paid social network and stick to it long enough.
adamsea 8y ago
“We” never controlled the floodgate to begin with.
intopieces 8y ago
>They never learned to control and own their systems. The overarching presumption here being that people want to learn to control and own their systems in the way you describe. By and large, they don't. This is evidenced plainly by the nonimpact of the "Cambridge Analytica Scandal," which, as far I can tell, has persuaded precisely zero people to move from the platform. The offending platform company recently held a highly successful convention to announce their new tech. Their stock has mostly recovered. Facebook continues to eat the world. The future does not look like freedom box. The future looks like WeChat.
- stevenicr 8y ago
  "zero people to move from the platform." seems like an outrageous claim. I have talked to several different types of fbook users, and some have removed apps, but not their account, many have mentioned that they have more dread in it's functions that joy in it's uses. Everyone I have spoken has changed the ways they use it, have lost trust in it, and are censoring themselves even more now than they were. Well not 100% of the people I have spoken with, my 80 year old grandmother still uses it the same, however she is now taking the advice of many and not believing anything she sees on there without researching sources further, which is a great thing imo. My sample size of fbook users is of course something like 4.5e-7% or something like that, so not that much different that the precisely zero statement. I think it's sage to say it looks for some time that fbook was trying desperately to encourage people to share as much as possible via the portal, and I think many people are realizing that is not the best thing for most people. I don't have access to the internal stats that may show this or not, and I do now expect the co to announce these kinds of metrics in a helpful way either. Maybe someone on the inside can publish them via tinder and brag they have access to that kind of data and get better dates. I would expect more snaplike than wechat like in the future for things that are personal, but we'll see. I've always thought fbook would become the new linked in (sterilized from personal stuff publicly), just as big G is becoming more like the yellow pages. This does open up desires for many groups around the world to have freedom boxes or something similar I imagine.
Eire_Banshee 8y ago
Well, this isnt incredibly pretentious
- 18pfsmt 8y ago
  Go ahead and make your case, but 5-word throwaway pot-shot comments are cancer for HN. Am I pretentious for changing my own oil, rotating my own tires, and other minor repairs to my car? I'm not going to defend the tone or all of the opinions, but recognizing how to exact as much control over your own life/ data as possible is valid. Especially, when others are advocating getting the federal government involved.

pier25 8y ago

It's not a matter of freedom or control, it's about convenience.

choward 8y ago
People don't actually realize that the convenience comes with a cost though because they haven't been exposed to the other end of the spectrum.
- pier25 8y ago
  Difficult to say, but I'd say convenience defeats everything (for most people) even if they understand what is going on.

the_greyd 8y ago

You haven't answered the fundamental question: How are they going to make money? The internet can be decentralized, and everything can be FOSS, but how is that going to make money for companies? If it isn't making money why will anyone bother changing their existing model? Unless we change the rules, we are not going to get different results. I wish there was a sustainable way to fund new tech by people. The growth we see in tech right now is manifested with this massive surveillance capitalism. Think about all the shiny tech/open source libraries coming out of google and facebook, now advertisements are what funds that. The line "All great civilizations were built on back of slaves" comes to mind. Our data and privacy is what we lose, for us to achieve this massive technological prowess.

coconutrandom 8y ago
They make money on hosting and compete on price and UI. But to be blunt, nothing can stop users from re-centralizing to the cheapest/fastest/easiest system regardless of how decentralized the protocol.
rokhayakebe 8y ago
I wish there was a sustainable way to fund new tech by people. We pay for our phone, electricity, connection service. We even pay for games. Yet we don't want to pay for the tools that help us manage our social networks. Or perhaps noone has dared to launch a paid social network and stick to it long enough.

adamsea 8y ago

“We” never controlled the floodgate to begin with.

intopieces 8y ago

>They never learned to control and own their systems. The overarching presumption here being that people want to learn to control and own their systems in the way you describe. By and large, they don't. This is evidenced plainly by the nonimpact of the "Cambridge Analytica Scandal," which, as far I can tell, has persuaded precisely zero people to move from the platform. The offending platform company recently held a highly successful convention to announce their new tech. Their stock has mostly recovered. Facebook continues to eat the world. The future does not look like freedom box. The future looks like WeChat.

stevenicr 8y ago
"zero people to move from the platform." seems like an outrageous claim. I have talked to several different types of fbook users, and some have removed apps, but not their account, many have mentioned that they have more dread in it's functions that joy in it's uses. Everyone I have spoken has changed the ways they use it, have lost trust in it, and are censoring themselves even more now than they were. Well not 100% of the people I have spoken with, my 80 year old grandmother still uses it the same, however she is now taking the advice of many and not believing anything she sees on there without researching sources further, which is a great thing imo. My sample size of fbook users is of course something like 4.5e-7% or something like that, so not that much different that the precisely zero statement. I think it's sage to say it looks for some time that fbook was trying desperately to encourage people to share as much as possible via the portal, and I think many people are realizing that is not the best thing for most people. I don't have access to the internal stats that may show this or not, and I do now expect the co to announce these kinds of metrics in a helpful way either. Maybe someone on the inside can publish them via tinder and brag they have access to that kind of data and get better dates. I would expect more snaplike than wechat like in the future for things that are personal, but we'll see. I've always thought fbook would become the new linked in (sterilized from personal stuff publicly), just as big G is becoming more like the yellow pages. This does open up desires for many groups around the world to have freedom boxes or something similar I imagine.

Eire_Banshee 8y ago

Well, this isnt incredibly pretentious

18pfsmt 8y ago
Go ahead and make your case, but 5-word throwaway pot-shot comments are cancer for HN. Am I pretentious for changing my own oil, rotating my own tires, and other minor repairs to my car? I'm not going to defend the tone or all of the opinions, but recognizing how to exact as much control over your own life/ data as possible is valid. Especially, when others are advocating getting the federal government involved.