5 ms·

>nobody can ever control or censor gets less hopeful every day Any communication medium that isn't controlled or censored will break under a deluge of spam.

by treis 6y ago

chmod600 6y ago
We see that a lot in practice, but it's not clear that there aren't solutions. For example, if it costs someone $0.00001 to send you a packet, that could still be decentralized but the economics change a lot. Maybe for the better.
- krapp 6y ago
  There is no solution which isn't equivalent to censorship, because "spam" is just a category of speech.
- dexterdog 6y ago
  But then spammers just send like they usually do, by exploiting somebody's insecure setup and using their resources.
  - petertodd 6y ago
    If being exploited in that way was more expensive, it might happen less often.
TimJRobinson 6y ago
Not true. I've been thinking about this problem for a while and there is a solution: https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderation-system-for-the-decentralized-web/ https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderati...
- Defenestresque 6y ago
  Thank you for this fascinating write-up. It's given me a lot to think about. I'm quite curious as to why no existing social networks have tried to implement your ideas in a meaningful way, and to a lesser extent why no new start-ups have. Perhaps when I have a few hundred million to invest in a better platform I'll reach out! (One can dream).
- treis 6y ago
  This is still centralized. You have 1 place that stores the trust ratings. The fact that it crowd sources the ratings doesn't change that it's centralized. It also doesn't really work. You have to choose between not gettimg messages from those outside your circle of trust or getting spammed.
freshhawk 6y ago
Weird, that hasn't happened to the ones I've been on for years. If someone tried to build an app on one of those systems where you were forced to accept messages by default until you blacklisted them then it probably would. It would be terrible. Thankfully no users actually want apps like that, we've already got email and web social media sites for having a public directory of strangers to contact. That is a use-case that is only sometimes needed, and when it is you only need to use it once.
mtgx 6y ago
Only huge ones where you can "broadcast" messages to all users or a huge amount of them will become that. Tightly knitted, invite-only groups shouldn't have that problem at all. A more real-world like experience needs to be created. People don't meet other people in the real world only at huge parties that can be crashed by anyone at any moment. They tend to be invited to dinners, etc, where the groups are usually small.
baud147258 6y ago
You can ban obvious spam and not censor the rest. So yes, you'd get some of the spam, but at least you wouldn't be censoring the rest. But you'd still need _some_ form of control, of course

>nobody can ever control or censor gets less hopeful every day Any communication medium that isn't controlled or censored will break under a deluge of spam.

by treis 6y ago

>nobody can ever control or censor gets less hopeful every day Any communication medium that isn't controlled or censored will break under a deluge of spam.

chmod600 6y ago

We see that a lot in practice, but it's not clear that there aren't solutions. For example, if it costs someone $0.00001 to send you a packet, that could still be decentralized but the economics change a lot. Maybe for the better.

krapp 6y ago
There is no solution which isn't equivalent to censorship, because "spam" is just a category of speech.
dexterdog 6y ago
But then spammers just send like they usually do, by exploiting somebody's insecure setup and using their resources.
- petertodd 6y ago
  If being exploited in that way was more expensive, it might happen less often.

TimJRobinson 6y ago

Not true. I've been thinking about this problem for a while and there is a solution: https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderation-system-for-the-decentralized-web/ https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderati...

Defenestresque 6y ago
Thank you for this fascinating write-up. It's given me a lot to think about. I'm quite curious as to why no existing social networks have tried to implement your ideas in a meaningful way, and to a lesser extent why no new start-ups have. Perhaps when I have a few hundred million to invest in a better platform I'll reach out! (One can dream).
treis 6y ago
This is still centralized. You have 1 place that stores the trust ratings. The fact that it crowd sources the ratings doesn't change that it's centralized. It also doesn't really work. You have to choose between not gettimg messages from those outside your circle of trust or getting spammed.

freshhawk 6y ago

Weird, that hasn't happened to the ones I've been on for years. If someone tried to build an app on one of those systems where you were forced to accept messages by default until you blacklisted them then it probably would. It would be terrible. Thankfully no users actually want apps like that, we've already got email and web social media sites for having a public directory of strangers to contact. That is a use-case that is only sometimes needed, and when it is you only need to use it once.

mtgx 6y ago

Only huge ones where you can "broadcast" messages to all users or a huge amount of them will become that. Tightly knitted, invite-only groups shouldn't have that problem at all. A more real-world like experience needs to be created. People don't meet other people in the real world only at huge parties that can be crashed by anyone at any moment. They tend to be invited to dinners, etc, where the groups are usually small.

baud147258 6y ago

You can ban obvious spam and not censor the rest. So yes, you'd get some of the spam, but at least you wouldn't be censoring the rest. But you'd still need _some_ form of control, of course