7 ms·

> It's always amazing to me to hear assumptions that decentralisation is a feature. Decentralization is not a feature for the end-user, it's a feature to devel

> It's always amazing to me to hear assumptions that decentralisation is a feature. Decentralization is not a feature for the end-user, it's a feature to developers. It's probably impossible for a new social network to take on Twitter, Facebook, etc. directly. However, a decentralized social network allows startups to move far quickly and implement other features that the big social networks are lacking. I suspect that whatever social network eventually pushes out the dominant players today, will use tools like these. One good precedent for this is AOL. AOL was safer and more user-friendly than the world-wide-web, but the web's decentralized nature allowed competitors to spring up much more quickly. I suspect something similar will eventually happen to today's social networks.

lokedhs 8y ago
> Decentralization is not a feature for the end-user, it's a feature to developers. On one hand you are right, it's a huge benefit to developers as they are able to create new services that leverage the strength of the existing network. Such as Peertube getting subscription and commenting features from other servers for free, and it “just works”. Imagine a youtube competitor wanting to leverage Twitter in the same way. Highly unlikely that it would be allowed, and even if it did, the integration would be Twitter-specific. On the other hand, (at least some) end-users see decentralisation as a huge benefit, and at least in my case it gives me confidence that the whim of a single company can't ruin the experience for me, or even take away the platform altogether. Most people may not consider this, but some people definitely do. And hopefully that number will increase over time.
- Nursie 8y ago
  Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative. "Nobody can censor us!" is absolutely, unfortunately equivalent to - "Nobody can take down race hatred, online harassment, child abuse images or other evil shit" And we've adequate evidence now to show that humans will use such platforms to post exactly that sort of stuff. For instance one of the bitcoin forks that allows larger data payloads had child abuse images uploaded to it, in an immutable, permanent way. Many/most people are not OK with that. I'm not yet seeing a way to balance these concerns.
  - speedplane 8y ago
    > Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative. Just b/c something is decentralized doesn't mean you can't take it down or hide it.
    - feanaro 8y ago
      Exactly. Even a centralized filtering mechanism can be curated by the community. The important point is that each server gets to decide whether to use it. If a user considers their server is not doing a good enough job with this, they simply move to another server.
      - Nursie 8y ago
        That's not a solution for illegal or harassing content.
  - feanaro 8y ago
    > Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative. Citation needed, please. This really sounds like your personal opinion presented as a general statement.
    - Nursie 8y ago
      Look at the news. Look at the outcry over teen suicides and how facebook/twitter didn't do enough to protect them. Look at the laws around child abuse imagery and how much popular support they get. It's not just my opinion.
      - DanBC 8y ago
        I agree. Here's the current Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care in England: https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1089864139835670528 https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1089864139835670528 He's the most tech-focussed minister we have. He's pushing tech pretty hard, so for him to be saying this should be a clear signal to the industry. See also the consultationn for the online harms white paper: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-whi... It's really weird that this extremist position ("any removal of content is censorship, and censorship is always bad") is so prominent on HN whenusers of products have shown, every single time, they they don't want it.

lokedhs 8y ago

> Decentralization is not a feature for the end-user, it's a feature to developers. On one hand you are right, it's a huge benefit to developers as they are able to create new services that leverage the strength of the existing network. Such as Peertube getting subscription and commenting features from other servers for free, and it “just works”. Imagine a youtube competitor wanting to leverage Twitter in the same way. Highly unlikely that it would be allowed, and even if it did, the integration would be Twitter-specific. On the other hand, (at least some) end-users see decentralisation as a huge benefit, and at least in my case it gives me confidence that the whim of a single company can't ruin the experience for me, or even take away the platform altogether. Most people may not consider this, but some people definitely do. And hopefully that number will increase over time.

Nursie 8y ago
Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative. "Nobody can censor us!" is absolutely, unfortunately equivalent to - "Nobody can take down race hatred, online harassment, child abuse images or other evil shit" And we've adequate evidence now to show that humans will use such platforms to post exactly that sort of stuff. For instance one of the bitcoin forks that allows larger data payloads had child abuse images uploaded to it, in an immutable, permanent way. Many/most people are not OK with that. I'm not yet seeing a way to balance these concerns.
- speedplane 8y ago
  > Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative. Just b/c something is decentralized doesn't mean you can't take it down or hide it.
  - feanaro 8y ago
    Exactly. Even a centralized filtering mechanism can be curated by the community. The important point is that each server gets to decide whether to use it. If a user considers their server is not doing a good enough job with this, they simply move to another server.
    - Nursie 8y ago
      That's not a solution for illegal or harassing content.
- feanaro 8y ago
  > Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative. Citation needed, please. This really sounds like your personal opinion presented as a general statement.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    Look at the news. Look at the outcry over teen suicides and how facebook/twitter didn't do enough to protect them. Look at the laws around child abuse imagery and how much popular support they get. It's not just my opinion.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      I agree. Here's the current Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care in England: https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1089864139835670528 https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1089864139835670528 He's the most tech-focussed minister we have. He's pushing tech pretty hard, so for him to be saying this should be a clear signal to the industry. See also the consultationn for the online harms white paper: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-whi... It's really weird that this extremist position ("any removal of content is censorship, and censorship is always bad") is so prominent on HN whenusers of products have shown, every single time, they they don't want it.