5 ms·
> E-mailadres is also decentralized, but so what? Most people use the same email providers so it's somewhat meaningless for SMTP itself to be decentralized. Goo
by OrderlyTiamat 7y ago
> E-mailadres is also decentralized, but so what? Most people use the same email providers so it's somewhat meaningless for SMTP itself to be decentralized. Google can still read your emails.
I actually think email is almost the ideal implementation of a decentralized network. You're always going to have giants in any communication network- that's simple the reality. Email allows people to use these giants or, and critically, it allows people to join in the conversation while not using those giants. It is open. Suppose this were to happen with twitter or facebook, where the protocol was open and people using networks like mastodon could simply join in. That is a way to achieve decentralization, with the benefits that go with it. If you don't want google to read your mail, you and your correspondences can choose not to. Twitter and Facebook offer no such choice.
- no_identd 7y ago>You're always going to have giants in any communication network I suppose you make that claim based on the assumption that any electronic long range communication system at most reduces to a network? If so, your assumption—while applicable to our current global communications network—doesn't cover the communication systems which could (& hopefully would) already exist if the ARPAnet originators hadn't messed this up by dropping the Internet layer and renaming the Network Layer to the 'Inter'net layer. It got Telcos exactly what they needed to remain giants.
- bavell 7y ago> if the ARPAnet originators hadn't messed this up by dropping the Internet layer and renaming the Network Layer to the 'Inter'net layer. Can you send elaborate? Genuinely curious.
- tgragnato 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet Back in the day the network layer was not standardised nor interoperable. The "International Network Working Group" provided a communication protocol (TCP/IP) capable of hiding the differences of the different networks. > the job of the TCP is merely to take a stream of messages produced by one HOST and reproduce the stream at a foreign receiving HOST without change. [Cerf] That network of networks demonstrated the feasibility of the concept of interconnection. The resulting net eventually became the global inter-network... INTERNET
- no_identd 7y agoNot my point tho, see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21108739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21108739 Interconnected Network Networking (what we have today)≠Interconnected Internetwork Internetworking (what we should have but don't) The latter enables recursive structures, the former doesn't.
- bavell 7y agoThank you, this is what I was looking for.
- no_identd 7y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21108739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21108739
- OrderlyTiamat 7y agoIt was more based on the idea of the network effect, because any service in communication systems may benefit from additonal users. This effect is uncoupled from the actual technical implementation, though that is also an important factor of course.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- derrick_jensen 7y agoThe issue here is that it is fairly difficult to not be automatically filed as spam, and you can easily be blocked from communicating with large chunks of people if something nasty happens. Of course, if you know these people directly, they can put in various exceptions, but most people you're interacting with won't