3 ms·

I'm not sure it matters. TripleByte is asking for super-sensitive information. 10 years down the line, Ammon won't be CEO anymore. No matter how much of a jerk

I'm not sure it matters. TripleByte is asking for super-sensitive information. 10 years down the line, Ammon won't be CEO anymore. No matter how much of a jerk Ammon is, I'm willing to trust-and-verify, so long as they get the and-verify part right. No matter how great a guy Ammon is, I'm not willing to trust without the and-verify part. He might get fired tomorrow, and Steve Ballmer or Carly Fiorina might get brought in. It might go under, and get sold to Oath. There's a ton of possibilities. He sounds honest enough in his apology, and on a personal level, I'm all for redemption and rehabilitation. It was also a one-time mistake. But I'm not dealing with a person. I'm dealing with an organization. Zero of the organizations who got my data in the nineties are the same organizations today.

EGreg 6y ago
The apology definitely sounds honest, but why are we putting all our data in one place and then trusting someone to make the "right decisions" regarding it? I believe society should stop centralizing its data, votes, money, etc. in the hands of a few. This decade we can work to change that. No matter how great a guy Ammon is, I'm not willing to trust without the and-verify part. He might get fired tomorrow, and Steve Ballmer or Carly Fiorina might get brought in. It might go under, and get sold to Oath. There's a ton of possibilities. Exactly. But when I say this, people often respond to me "no, this is the perfect example of a company that should be centralized" followed by justifications and downvotes. Decentralization is still as uncomfortable as the civil rights movement in the 50s, for many people.
- woofie11 6y ago
  I like decentralized in some places, and centralized in others. I think decentralized can and should replace Facebook, LinkedIn, blogs, and similar. On the other hand, there are a lot of places where centralized, with proper checks-and-balances, allows for a larger degree of scientific research and transparency. Medical and education come to mind.
  - EGreg 6y ago
    How about this dichotomy: 1. Infrastructure should be more decentralized and let nameless providers compete 2. Information should be available to everyone and let nameless authors collaborate 1 produces a market of prices and competition, while 2 produces a collaborative edifice of knowledge and well architected software.
    - woofie11 6y ago
      I'd actually like infrastructure to be at home. When I was in college, my "infrastructure" consisted of a PC running Linux in my dorm room, a good bit slower than a Raspberry Pi. It was fine for managing my documents, email, etc. I'd like information to either be under my control, or managed as a public good by a non-profit or government agency with appropriate checks-and-balances and transparency.
      - EGreg 6y ago
        That’s great A hosting company can be local Or you could host your files on your computer. If you host a social network where others also contribute content then you ARE the local hosting company and now you’re responsible for their data That should all be a choice.
        woofie11 6y ago
        Back in the early '00s, I designed a social network architecture which was fully decentralized. The only people whose information I'd have would be my friends', and vice-versa. I never built it, mind you, it was all a thought experiment. But I still think that sort of thing ought to be how it works.
ryanwaggoner 6y ago
I’m confused: it sounds like you think giving them any data was a mistake before they made this product decision? After all, whatever reputation they had back then to safeguard your data also wouldn’t mean anything to Ballmer or Fiorina, right? So if it was a bad idea before and it’s a bad idea now, has this whole episode even changed anything for you?

EGreg 6y ago

The apology definitely sounds honest, but why are we putting all our data in one place and then trusting someone to make the "right decisions" regarding it? I believe society should stop centralizing its data, votes, money, etc. in the hands of a few. This decade we can work to change that. No matter how great a guy Ammon is, I'm not willing to trust without the and-verify part. He might get fired tomorrow, and Steve Ballmer or Carly Fiorina might get brought in. It might go under, and get sold to Oath. There's a ton of possibilities. Exactly. But when I say this, people often respond to me "no, this is the perfect example of a company that should be centralized" followed by justifications and downvotes. Decentralization is still as uncomfortable as the civil rights movement in the 50s, for many people.

woofie11 6y ago
I like decentralized in some places, and centralized in others. I think decentralized can and should replace Facebook, LinkedIn, blogs, and similar. On the other hand, there are a lot of places where centralized, with proper checks-and-balances, allows for a larger degree of scientific research and transparency. Medical and education come to mind.
- EGreg 6y ago
  How about this dichotomy: 1. Infrastructure should be more decentralized and let nameless providers compete 2. Information should be available to everyone and let nameless authors collaborate 1 produces a market of prices and competition, while 2 produces a collaborative edifice of knowledge and well architected software.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    I'd actually like infrastructure to be at home. When I was in college, my "infrastructure" consisted of a PC running Linux in my dorm room, a good bit slower than a Raspberry Pi. It was fine for managing my documents, email, etc. I'd like information to either be under my control, or managed as a public good by a non-profit or government agency with appropriate checks-and-balances and transparency.
    - EGreg 6y ago
      That’s great A hosting company can be local Or you could host your files on your computer. If you host a social network where others also contribute content then you ARE the local hosting company and now you’re responsible for their data That should all be a choice.
      - woofie11 6y ago
        Back in the early '00s, I designed a social network architecture which was fully decentralized. The only people whose information I'd have would be my friends', and vice-versa. I never built it, mind you, it was all a thought experiment. But I still think that sort of thing ought to be how it works.

ryanwaggoner 6y ago

I’m confused: it sounds like you think giving them any data was a mistake before they made this product decision? After all, whatever reputation they had back then to safeguard your data also wouldn’t mean anything to Ballmer or Fiorina, right? So if it was a bad idea before and it’s a bad idea now, has this whole episode even changed anything for you?