3 ms·

Looking at a protocol such as ActivityPub is actually the wrong analysis and will mislead you with false hope. I'm not against decentralization but if we techi

by jasode 7y ago

Looking at a protocol such as ActivityPub is actually the wrong analysis and will mislead you with false hope. I'm not against decentralization but if we techies want to raise the bar discussing realistic outcomes, we need to break out of the unproductive loop of focusing on technical protocols. I'll copy&paste a previous comment here: >We need a protocol, a specification for completely decentralised, carry-with-us social networks. I know it seems logical that a "social network protocol" is the answer to replace Facebook but after studying the mechanics of social networks, I've concluded that focusing on technical protocols is incorrect. My suggestion to programmers seriously thinking of new solutions in the social networking space: don't get sidetracked into thinking about the protocol because if you do, your new social network will end up in the graveyard of previous failed projects like Diaspora. Instead, think about the database of real names. Also, another previous comment on how focusing on protocols is (inadvertently) analyzing the wrong drivers for success: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231960 Another comment explaining why the free protocol "Signal" didn't solve the funding dilemma: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20232499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20232499 My previous comment on why protocols like ActivityPub & Mastodon are not the answer for a general purpose social network adopted by the masses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18727230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18727230

moojd 7y ago
In the words of Gucci Mane, "A man can get lost in the sauce, but the same man can be lost without the sauce." It's natural that here on hacker news we spend most of our time discussing protocols and implementation details. No, protocols alone are not a solution but they are important. What's the point of just re-inventing centralized social networks over and over again? That being said, in order for any of these protocols to reach the masses the protocol itself needs to be invisible to casual users. If the marketing for your new social network is "It runs on this cool decentralized protocol!" you will never reach a non-technical audience. The end product needs to be as good and as easy to use as centralized equivalents even if that means making some compromises.
- holler 7y ago
  The point is to iterate, innovate, and compete. Name one major social media site today that was based on a “new protocol”? Answer: None. They all started as slight twists to an existing site. It’s kind of strange to me that the word “central” has such a bad rap when it really just describes an efficient means of organization, which naturally lends to other efficiencies.
  - moojd 7y ago
    > Name one major social media site today that was based on a “new protocol”? Answer: None. If one already existed then this title of this post would be 'ActivityPub is the Now' instead of 'ActivityPub Could Be the Future'. Efficiency isn't the only metric and comes at the cost of freedom and resiliency.
  - ryukafalz 7y ago
    “Efficient” perhaps, but also typically controlled by a single entity that often ends up using its power in ways that don’t benefit its users. It’s not really about the technology, it’s about the power dynamic that technology leads to.
smolder 7y ago
People reasonably want to separate what makes Facebook useful for users from what makes it profitable for Facebook, because the part that's good for FB is bad for us. Facebook does not care who they harm by selling their information or analysis of, as long as they don't harm themselves in doing so. The broader problem we're having and trying to solve is centralized power that is hostile to ordinary people. The internet could have been an even more democratizing force, but economic and political pressure have made it largely another tool of oppression and concentration of power for those who hold power. A protocol can't fix that alone, but it is a piece of the puzzle to answering "How could we do this better?" It's a piece which is more accessible than overhauling society to eliminate incentives to sell out people's privacy, freedom and autonomy.

by jasode 7y ago

moojd 7y ago

In the words of Gucci Mane, "A man can get lost in the sauce, but the same man can be lost without the sauce." It's natural that here on hacker news we spend most of our time discussing protocols and implementation details. No, protocols alone are not a solution but they are important. What's the point of just re-inventing centralized social networks over and over again? That being said, in order for any of these protocols to reach the masses the protocol itself needs to be invisible to casual users. If the marketing for your new social network is "It runs on this cool decentralized protocol!" you will never reach a non-technical audience. The end product needs to be as good and as easy to use as centralized equivalents even if that means making some compromises.

holler 7y ago
The point is to iterate, innovate, and compete. Name one major social media site today that was based on a “new protocol”? Answer: None. They all started as slight twists to an existing site. It’s kind of strange to me that the word “central” has such a bad rap when it really just describes an efficient means of organization, which naturally lends to other efficiencies.
- moojd 7y ago
  > Name one major social media site today that was based on a “new protocol”? Answer: None. If one already existed then this title of this post would be 'ActivityPub is the Now' instead of 'ActivityPub Could Be the Future'. Efficiency isn't the only metric and comes at the cost of freedom and resiliency.
- ryukafalz 7y ago
  “Efficient” perhaps, but also typically controlled by a single entity that often ends up using its power in ways that don’t benefit its users. It’s not really about the technology, it’s about the power dynamic that technology leads to.

smolder 7y ago

People reasonably want to separate what makes Facebook useful for users from what makes it profitable for Facebook, because the part that's good for FB is bad for us. Facebook does not care who they harm by selling their information or analysis of, as long as they don't harm themselves in doing so. The broader problem we're having and trying to solve is centralized power that is hostile to ordinary people. The internet could have been an even more democratizing force, but economic and political pressure have made it largely another tool of oppression and concentration of power for those who hold power. A protocol can't fix that alone, but it is a piece of the puzzle to answering "How could we do this better?" It's a piece which is more accessible than overhauling society to eliminate incentives to sell out people's privacy, freedom and autonomy.