3 ms·
> With a federated network, however, I generally have to trust every single host that any of my contacts has decided to sign up with I can see why, at first gl
by dane-pgp 6y ago
> With a federated network, however, I generally have to trust every single host that any of my contacts has decided to sign up with
I can see why, at first glance, this seems strictly worse because there are more entities to trust, but this is not a static system.
As an analogy, think about Facebook. Let's say that your friends all hate Facebook, but continue to use it, because for them the inconvenience and switching costs of moving to a different social network (perhaps one you are offering to host for them) is higher than the cost of continuing to use Facebook.
With a federated network, not only can you encourage (or demand) your friends to use a host that you approve of, but also, the very fact that people can move from one host to another (and there isn't a single basket containing all the eggs) means that these hosts are less likely to risk their reputation or be attacked in the first place.
> even in federated networks like email, some hosts will become bigger than others and will eventually take over most of the users and traffic
It seems you are arguing both that federated systems lead to there being too many nodes to trust, and also that in practice only a few big nodes will be trusted. I may be over-simplifying your points there, and I do think there are challenges with federated networks (particularly when federation is deliberately broken due to spamming/abuse/politics) but it's worth having a clear SWOT analysis here.
Anyway, my point, as before, is that a network coalescing around a few big nodes is not a problem as long as there is portability of accounts between them. I would rather trust 3 big providers who fear losing users to a more secure platform, than 1 monopolistic provider that's too big to fail.
- Reelin 6y ago> ... the very fact that people can move from one host to another ... I think it's worth explicitly spelling out that federation reduces the cost to switch hosts to near zero in many cases. There's no technical reason you can't use a different host on your end per contact in Matrix (for one to one messaging at least). It would be absurd, but you could do it provided that your client supported it. If it's really needed, federation combined with open source software means that tooling can be adapted to facilitate your particular security and workflow requirements. (Not that you should need it generally, but the freedom is always there if you do.)
- codethief 6y ago> federation combined with open source software means that tooling can be adapted to facilitate your particular security and workflow requirements In theory, yes. In practice, however, it gets very complicated. (See e.g. Jabber.) You end up with a situation where only experts are able to set up a secure system for themselves, whereas the average user can't even accurately assess how well her/his privacy is currently protected.
- Reelin 6y agoI agree, I never meant to imply that maintaining your own fork is simple. I was merely highlighting that the freedom to do so while still interoperating with everyone else is there. Centralization generally deprives you of that ability. It's analogous to open source vs proprietary software. End users shouldn't generally need to modify the software they use. Doing so isn't typically easy or straightforward for the vast majority of people. But if you ever need to do so, the option is there.