32 ms·

Because the average person wants to be where their friends are, and us something that just works. Modernity poses so many challenges that decentralization is me

Because the average person wants to be where their friends are, and us something that just works. Modernity poses so many challenges that decentralization is meaningless to most "normal" people, whether through ignorance or lack of care. More importantly, you seem to place a higher value on decentralization than centralization. Why is that? What if centralization allows more people express themselves more freely? Would you place a higher value on centralization? Decentralization is a design choice, that's it. Unfortunately, we have to come to terms with the fact that outside the sphere of hackerdom and a select few privacy-conscious individuals, decentralization is completely and utterly irrelevant.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Decentralization is a design choice, that's it. Unfortunately, we have to come to terms with the fact that outside the sphere of hackerdom and a select few privacy-conscious individuals, decentralization is completely and utterly irrelevant. I'd posit that decentralization is a business model choice that has design implications. A decentralized model means that one entity can't control access to users, their data or their eyeballs. As far as privacy is concerned, that's not really an issue WRT centralization vs. decentralization since the whole point of social networking is to share information with others. Rather, what folks present as "privacy issues" are really more about control, monetization and engagement. I want control over the information I share. If I want to keep it private, I wouldn't share it. What's more, I despise advertising and contact from individuals and corporations whose only interest in me is to extract value (whether that be money, attention or access to my social graph) from me. I'd say that most people, if given the choice not to have that in their social interactions[0] would choose control/lack of advertising/marketing overwhelmingly. So no. It's not irrelevant at all. Rather it's a matter of having a viable alternative. Unless, of course, your paycheck is contingent on such centralized platforms. Is yours? [0] Let's say you're at the pub having a pint with your friends and a group of strangers stood nearby listening to your conversation, and every 30 seconds or so, one of them started pitching some product or service to you? How long would you continue to frequent that pub?
- SubGenius 6y ago
  > What's more, I despise advertising and contact from individuals and corporations whose only interest in me is to extract value I completely agree with you here. Despise is the exact word I would use to describe my feelings towards advertising. > I'd say that most people, if given the choice not to have that in their social interactions[0] would choose control/lack of advertising/marketing overwhelmingly Maybe it's just me being older and more cynical but I really don't think most people care about control either, at least not in large enough numbers to matter. I'd be happy to be wrong, of course. > Unless, of course, your paycheck is contingent on such centralized platforms. Is yours? Not at all. But I am building something in this space, with decentralization/anonymity as a priority. It is entirely possible for me to be in full support of a move towards decentralized services while accepting the reality that it's not important to most people. Pragmatism does not equal defeatism.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Maybe it's just me being older and more cynical but I really don't think most people care about control either, at least not in large enough numbers to matter. I'd be happy to be wrong, of course. Given that I'm in my mid-fifties, I'm guessing that cynicism has little to do with your age. I'm not especially sanguine about the masses being all that concerned about control or centralization vs. decentralization either. That said, I do believe (perhaps I'm just not cynical enough yet...and I hope I never am) that providing those "most people" with an alternative that allows them to maintain the connections they have (via federation with centralized services) and the added value of controlling their own experience using a tool that's simple to use and ubiquitous (think bundled web browsers), they'd jump (or rather use what you dump in their lap) at it. >Not at all. But I am building something in this space, with decentralization/anonymity as a priority. It is entirely possible for me to be in full support of a move towards decentralized services while accepting the reality that it's not important to most people. Pragmatism does not equal defeatism. Fair enough. My primary point in posting this "Ask HN" bit was to spur discussion about both the societal and technical issues surrounding decentralized network services in general, and SN services in particular. Especially since the centralized models we see today are the result of artificial barriers to direct interaction. Those are partly due to software/platform advances that have outpaced the consumer internet access infrastructure (that's not an accident -- it's not a nefarious plot either, just monopsonies attempting to protect their privileged status) and the co-opting of FOSS for corporate use (again, not a nefarious plot, just folks limiting their economic exposure by using free stuff), combined with the fact that marketers will pay big bucks for eyeballs on their messaging and even bigger bucks for their messaging to reach their "target" market. All of this, combined with the vertical integration of network and content providers has created a "broadcast" mode for most Internet services. All of which is bad for creativity, content creation/distribution, freedom of expression and real (rather than highly filtered/curated) human interaction. Do I have all the answers? No. But I do have the suspicion that by solving the technical challenges that keep folks in these centralized silos, we can create a better, more open and more equitable environment on the 'net. If we do so, and help "most people" understand how this will allow them to have a superior experience across a vast swathe of their lives -- not just social networking, but personal control of their devices (including IoT) without centralized groups both limiting their activities and charging them "rent" on their own devices. It's a complex set of topics and I'm not doing them justice here. That said, there are many blockers that keep folks from decentralizing their access to their fellow humans. Most of those barriers are artificial and exist to enrich those who own the centralized platforms -- and only continue to exist by buying, copying or forcing out their competition. I've strayed pretty far afield here, but the reasons why we don't have decentralized social networking are many of the same reasons why corporations like YouTube and Cloudflare are so successful. I'd only add that anonymity (or pseudonymity, as I practice here) has its place and I support it wholeheartedly. But decentralization adds so much more, IMHO.
rektide 6y ago
The alpha geeks of decentralization need to prove they are living better lives. And not just by the virtue of doing so, but by creating combining remixing in a way that is more fun, more interesting, in a way that the staid legacy platforms can not. It's not about decentralization, to me. To me it was always more about extensibility. About freedom to try new things, to bend tech in ever more interesting ways. There's a wide internet out there, and decentralization wins when it's not just it's own platform, but when that decentralized platform is a part of a wider internet surfing experience, in a way that the walled-garden social intra-nets can not be.

nobody9999 6y ago

>Decentralization is a design choice, that's it. Unfortunately, we have to come to terms with the fact that outside the sphere of hackerdom and a select few privacy-conscious individuals, decentralization is completely and utterly irrelevant. I'd posit that decentralization is a business model choice that has design implications. A decentralized model means that one entity can't control access to users, their data or their eyeballs. As far as privacy is concerned, that's not really an issue WRT centralization vs. decentralization since the whole point of social networking is to share information with others. Rather, what folks present as "privacy issues" are really more about control, monetization and engagement. I want control over the information I share. If I want to keep it private, I wouldn't share it. What's more, I despise advertising and contact from individuals and corporations whose only interest in me is to extract value (whether that be money, attention or access to my social graph) from me. I'd say that most people, if given the choice not to have that in their social interactions[0] would choose control/lack of advertising/marketing overwhelmingly. So no. It's not irrelevant at all. Rather it's a matter of having a viable alternative. Unless, of course, your paycheck is contingent on such centralized platforms. Is yours? [0] Let's say you're at the pub having a pint with your friends and a group of strangers stood nearby listening to your conversation, and every 30 seconds or so, one of them started pitching some product or service to you? How long would you continue to frequent that pub?

SubGenius 6y ago
> What's more, I despise advertising and contact from individuals and corporations whose only interest in me is to extract value I completely agree with you here. Despise is the exact word I would use to describe my feelings towards advertising. > I'd say that most people, if given the choice not to have that in their social interactions[0] would choose control/lack of advertising/marketing overwhelmingly Maybe it's just me being older and more cynical but I really don't think most people care about control either, at least not in large enough numbers to matter. I'd be happy to be wrong, of course. > Unless, of course, your paycheck is contingent on such centralized platforms. Is yours? Not at all. But I am building something in this space, with decentralization/anonymity as a priority. It is entirely possible for me to be in full support of a move towards decentralized services while accepting the reality that it's not important to most people. Pragmatism does not equal defeatism.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Maybe it's just me being older and more cynical but I really don't think most people care about control either, at least not in large enough numbers to matter. I'd be happy to be wrong, of course. Given that I'm in my mid-fifties, I'm guessing that cynicism has little to do with your age. I'm not especially sanguine about the masses being all that concerned about control or centralization vs. decentralization either. That said, I do believe (perhaps I'm just not cynical enough yet...and I hope I never am) that providing those "most people" with an alternative that allows them to maintain the connections they have (via federation with centralized services) and the added value of controlling their own experience using a tool that's simple to use and ubiquitous (think bundled web browsers), they'd jump (or rather use what you dump in their lap) at it. >Not at all. But I am building something in this space, with decentralization/anonymity as a priority. It is entirely possible for me to be in full support of a move towards decentralized services while accepting the reality that it's not important to most people. Pragmatism does not equal defeatism. Fair enough. My primary point in posting this "Ask HN" bit was to spur discussion about both the societal and technical issues surrounding decentralized network services in general, and SN services in particular. Especially since the centralized models we see today are the result of artificial barriers to direct interaction. Those are partly due to software/platform advances that have outpaced the consumer internet access infrastructure (that's not an accident -- it's not a nefarious plot either, just monopsonies attempting to protect their privileged status) and the co-opting of FOSS for corporate use (again, not a nefarious plot, just folks limiting their economic exposure by using free stuff), combined with the fact that marketers will pay big bucks for eyeballs on their messaging and even bigger bucks for their messaging to reach their "target" market. All of this, combined with the vertical integration of network and content providers has created a "broadcast" mode for most Internet services. All of which is bad for creativity, content creation/distribution, freedom of expression and real (rather than highly filtered/curated) human interaction. Do I have all the answers? No. But I do have the suspicion that by solving the technical challenges that keep folks in these centralized silos, we can create a better, more open and more equitable environment on the 'net. If we do so, and help "most people" understand how this will allow them to have a superior experience across a vast swathe of their lives -- not just social networking, but personal control of their devices (including IoT) without centralized groups both limiting their activities and charging them "rent" on their own devices. It's a complex set of topics and I'm not doing them justice here. That said, there are many blockers that keep folks from decentralizing their access to their fellow humans. Most of those barriers are artificial and exist to enrich those who own the centralized platforms -- and only continue to exist by buying, copying or forcing out their competition. I've strayed pretty far afield here, but the reasons why we don't have decentralized social networking are many of the same reasons why corporations like YouTube and Cloudflare are so successful. I'd only add that anonymity (or pseudonymity, as I practice here) has its place and I support it wholeheartedly. But decentralization adds so much more, IMHO.

rektide 6y ago

The alpha geeks of decentralization need to prove they are living better lives. And not just by the virtue of doing so, but by creating combining remixing in a way that is more fun, more interesting, in a way that the staid legacy platforms can not. It's not about decentralization, to me. To me it was always more about extensibility. About freedom to try new things, to bend tech in ever more interesting ways. There's a wide internet out there, and decentralization wins when it's not just it's own platform, but when that decentralized platform is a part of a wider internet surfing experience, in a way that the walled-garden social intra-nets can not be.