3 ms·

I've said this 1000 times, but garbage like Facebook or Twitter could be replaced overnight by a protocol. There is really zero reason it couldn't be built from

I've said this 1000 times, but garbage like Facebook or Twitter could be replaced overnight by a protocol. There is really zero reason it couldn't be built from existing distributed tooling, be secure and just as useful without lizard people getting in the way.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> I've said this 1000 times, but garbage like Facebook or Twitter could be replaced overnight by a protocol. No, it couldn't, and saying it more won't make it any more true. That is, sure, you can design a protocol that supports manpy of the same basic functions (and such protocols exist already), but centralized governance is ultimately part of what people want, or at least essential to stop a social network into degrading into what people don't want.
- naringas 7y ago
  why not? it certainly is technically feasable
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > it certainly is technically feasable It's technically feasible to build a protocol that supports the distributing social status updates group chat, direct messaging, etc.; many such things are around, some are, IIRC, older than Facebook. The product Facebook, and why people use it, is more than just that technical underpinning, but involves active management. A protocol doesn't replace that, and a distributed protocol where nodes do their own active management, while possible, isn't a stable equilibrium. Which we've seen with open protocols in spaces related to what Facebook does many, many times already.
    - dogcomplex 7y ago
      Can you give an example of how active management is done by Facebook (etc) in a way that a distributed protocol (with a team of developers and incentivized crowds) could not? It seems to me the major differences between centralized and decentralized solutions are first-mover advantages, network effect advantages (big gets bigger), and advertising budget. I'm skeptical that the quality of the product is the defining reason for Facebook et al's success, or that it would save them against a viably-large decentralized solution.
    - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      I am confused, what do you mean by active management? How have I benefited from it?
- i_am_nomad 7y ago
  Neither of you have provided any meaningful arguments to support your positions. I would say that Mastodon is an example that supports the OP’s point. But in the real, practical world, a social network needs investment and marketing to catch on and extend to a useful amount of people. So in that sense, you’re correct as well.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > I would say that Mastodon is an example that supports the OP’s point. I would say Mastodon’s degree of success in replacing Facebook, etc., is an example which refutes OP’s point. (Also, Mastodon is more than just a protocol, but even if you ignore that...)
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Mastodon is minuscule, and has already been showing growing pains. (I'm on Mastodon, have been for two years, and love it. But it is no majick bullet.)
gaogao 7y ago
Mastodon does exist and isn't perfect in all regards.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> I've said this 1000 times, but garbage like Facebook or Twitter could be replaced overnight by a protocol. No, it couldn't, and saying it more won't make it any more true. That is, sure, you can design a protocol that supports manpy of the same basic functions (and such protocols exist already), but centralized governance is ultimately part of what people want, or at least essential to stop a social network into degrading into what people don't want.

naringas 7y ago
why not? it certainly is technically feasable
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > it certainly is technically feasable It's technically feasible to build a protocol that supports the distributing social status updates group chat, direct messaging, etc.; many such things are around, some are, IIRC, older than Facebook. The product Facebook, and why people use it, is more than just that technical underpinning, but involves active management. A protocol doesn't replace that, and a distributed protocol where nodes do their own active management, while possible, isn't a stable equilibrium. Which we've seen with open protocols in spaces related to what Facebook does many, many times already.
  - dogcomplex 7y ago
    Can you give an example of how active management is done by Facebook (etc) in a way that a distributed protocol (with a team of developers and incentivized crowds) could not? It seems to me the major differences between centralized and decentralized solutions are first-mover advantages, network effect advantages (big gets bigger), and advertising budget. I'm skeptical that the quality of the product is the defining reason for Facebook et al's success, or that it would save them against a viably-large decentralized solution.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    I am confused, what do you mean by active management? How have I benefited from it?
i_am_nomad 7y ago
Neither of you have provided any meaningful arguments to support your positions. I would say that Mastodon is an example that supports the OP’s point. But in the real, practical world, a social network needs investment and marketing to catch on and extend to a useful amount of people. So in that sense, you’re correct as well.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I would say that Mastodon is an example that supports the OP’s point. I would say Mastodon’s degree of success in replacing Facebook, etc., is an example which refutes OP’s point. (Also, Mastodon is more than just a protocol, but even if you ignore that...)
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Mastodon is minuscule, and has already been showing growing pains. (I'm on Mastodon, have been for two years, and love it. But it is no majick bullet.)

gaogao 7y ago

Mastodon does exist and isn't perfect in all regards.