3 ms·

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?