4 ms·

> At some point, the collective tech community needs to develop a serious alternative to the current reality of a single corporation controlling the overwhelmin

by zmix 6y ago

> At some point, the collective tech community needs to develop a serious alternative to the current reality of a single corporation controlling the overwhelming majority of [...] I think we all can agree on this. The question, however, is: What is gonna pay for it? Especially the transmission of videos is very expensive. And while I would believe, that a lot of nerds would sacrifice resources to keep a P2P form of a specialized content distribution network running, it would not reach more than a few: the nerds themselves.

etrabroline 6y ago
>it would not reach more than a few: the nerds themselves Couldn't that have been said about the World Wide Web itself in 1994? Peer-to-Peer distribution only doubles the bandwidth required on a per peer basis. I don't think most broadband internet connections are >50% saturated by a youtube video.
- zmix 6y ago
  > Couldn't that have been said about the World Wide Web itself in 1994? And for a long time, it was! Let's not forget, that the novelty/impact of Internet ("a new world, we need it!") and an abstract concept like a "net in the net" is very much different. While the former is cool, the latter is, well: "who needs that", the average person says? You don't need seperate distibution networks for Facebook and Twitter, email, shopping and the web. And that's where the majority of the people wannt to hang around. Yes, Netscape was around, when Microsoft introduced IE, but it really came to everybody with IE and Outlook Express (otherwise, the net would still be a more refined and better mannered place, I dare say).
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    I don't think implementation details matter. Isn't the Facebook backend a private 'net in the net'? What matters is the ability to create high quality content, and that's something 'nerds' tend to do a lot of. People only hang out on the big platforms because that's where the 'cool' people were in 2005.

by zmix 6y ago

etrabroline 6y ago

>it would not reach more than a few: the nerds themselves Couldn't that have been said about the World Wide Web itself in 1994? Peer-to-Peer distribution only doubles the bandwidth required on a per peer basis. I don't think most broadband internet connections are >50% saturated by a youtube video.

zmix 6y ago
> Couldn't that have been said about the World Wide Web itself in 1994? And for a long time, it was! Let's not forget, that the novelty/impact of Internet ("a new world, we need it!") and an abstract concept like a "net in the net" is very much different. While the former is cool, the latter is, well: "who needs that", the average person says? You don't need seperate distibution networks for Facebook and Twitter, email, shopping and the web. And that's where the majority of the people wannt to hang around. Yes, Netscape was around, when Microsoft introduced IE, but it really came to everybody with IE and Outlook Express (otherwise, the net would still be a more refined and better mannered place, I dare say).
- etrabroline 6y ago
  I don't think implementation details matter. Isn't the Facebook backend a private 'net in the net'? What matters is the ability to create high quality content, and that's something 'nerds' tend to do a lot of. People only hang out on the big platforms because that's where the 'cool' people were in 2005.