4 ms·

I sound like a broken record, but in my humble view decentralized social network is even worse than centralized one. Key feature of any social network should b

by rixrax 8y ago

I sound like a broken record, but in my humble view decentralized social network is even worse than centralized one. Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten' (e.g. delete content), and ability of network to moderate and update content (due to legal requirements, or due to users requests for their own content or for other reasons). How do you manage that in a system such as proposed here? How do you enforce content to be removed due to court order? How do you take down a revenge this or that after your account gets hijacked and your password/keys are gone?

vasilipupkin 8y ago
decentralized social network just means users own their own data. it doesn't mean the UI that displays the aggregate social network feed cannot moderate the contents
- rixrax 8y ago
  So you're saying it can be centralized too, as long as TOS says users keep owning their data? But even in decentralized model, you may think you 'own' you data (as in TOS), but surely it cannot just reside on computing resources you have full control over. Now if you lose your passwords/keys, who do you contact to take your content down, grant you access to it again? What is an arbitration process to decide that you're you, not some impostor?
  - vasilipupkin 8y ago
    I think the idea is that your identity is registered on the blockchain and the data physically resides in your encrypted storage, that is accessed via this identity. if you lose your keys you are ducked in the same way that you are ducked with crypto in general if you lose your keys. I am not sure exactly, but that's my understanding.
dcbadacd 8y ago
> Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten' I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on. It's so hard to avoid "digital Alzheimer's" it's infuriating and we should curb it rather than encourage it. I do myself want to delete old FB Messenger conversations, but I'd be seriously pissed seeing some old chat containing only my incoherent ramblings. I think one-sided deletion isn't the solution, fine-tuned privacy settings (and thus hiding and possible recovery) is. It's important that we don't forget to deal with this before we actually do start to notice that "f* shouldn't have deleted that".
- krapp 8y ago
  >I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. >I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on. I disagree - the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes, or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record, which it was never designed or intended to do. I agree that Reddit threads with deleted content are annoying, but that's an implementation detail Reddit chooses to have and could likewise choose not to have (the way Hacker News chooses to make it impossible to delete user accounts, change usernames or delete comments after a certain time.) But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate. >I think one-sided deletion isn't the solution, fine-tuned privacy settings (and thus hiding and possible recovery) is. Both can be solutions, but I believe the former is a necessity.
  - dcbadacd 8y ago
    > the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes The right of users to assert control over their identity is different from the control over all of the data the user put online. Your right to your data should end with my right to my data. As I said, data deletion is so often damaging it's ridiculous. > or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record Please don't twist my words, I never said that. > But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate. I think that exactly has to be up for debate, especially with "social networks", noone is social alone thus the data shouldn't belong to that one person. I'm not saying it should be new "Facebook" that should have the control, not at all, the users should get to decide. Over time I've accumulated access to various collections of images of for example events that have happened in the past. I made those pictures, I shared them, I have control over them, do you think it's right I now go around and wipe them?

by rixrax 8y ago

vasilipupkin 8y ago

decentralized social network just means users own their own data. it doesn't mean the UI that displays the aggregate social network feed cannot moderate the contents

rixrax 8y ago
So you're saying it can be centralized too, as long as TOS says users keep owning their data? But even in decentralized model, you may think you 'own' you data (as in TOS), but surely it cannot just reside on computing resources you have full control over. Now if you lose your passwords/keys, who do you contact to take your content down, grant you access to it again? What is an arbitration process to decide that you're you, not some impostor?
- vasilipupkin 8y ago
  I think the idea is that your identity is registered on the blockchain and the data physically resides in your encrypted storage, that is accessed via this identity. if you lose your keys you are ducked in the same way that you are ducked with crypto in general if you lose your keys. I am not sure exactly, but that's my understanding.

dcbadacd 8y ago

> Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten' I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on. It's so hard to avoid "digital Alzheimer's" it's infuriating and we should curb it rather than encourage it. I do myself want to delete old FB Messenger conversations, but I'd be seriously pissed seeing some old chat containing only my incoherent ramblings. I think one-sided deletion isn't the solution, fine-tuned privacy settings (and thus hiding and possible recovery) is. It's important that we don't forget to deal with this before we actually do start to notice that "f* shouldn't have deleted that".

krapp 8y ago
>I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. >I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on. I disagree - the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes, or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record, which it was never designed or intended to do. I agree that Reddit threads with deleted content are annoying, but that's an implementation detail Reddit chooses to have and could likewise choose not to have (the way Hacker News chooses to make it impossible to delete user accounts, change usernames or delete comments after a certain time.) But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate. >I think one-sided deletion isn't the solution, fine-tuned privacy settings (and thus hiding and possible recovery) is. Both can be solutions, but I believe the former is a necessity.
- dcbadacd 8y ago
  > the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes The right of users to assert control over their identity is different from the control over all of the data the user put online. Your right to your data should end with my right to my data. As I said, data deletion is so often damaging it's ridiculous. > or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record Please don't twist my words, I never said that. > But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate. I think that exactly has to be up for debate, especially with "social networks", noone is social alone thus the data shouldn't belong to that one person. I'm not saying it should be new "Facebook" that should have the control, not at all, the users should get to decide. Over time I've accumulated access to various collections of images of for example events that have happened in the past. I made those pictures, I shared them, I have control over them, do you think it's right I now go around and wipe them?