4 ms·

I was thinking WhatsApp but maybe you're right

EGreg 6y ago
Okay I’ll bite Just posted our free open source platform we were working on for 10 years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25717417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25717417
- oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago
  Sorry man not interested in non-federated solutions.
  - EGreg 6y ago
    Not sure what you mean by non-federated... Qbix can support many protocols including foaf, matrix, scuttlebutt, DID and so on. You can make it as federated as you wish.
- jhardy54 6y ago
  > MAGA folks looking for platforms for their "free speech". This is not a target demographic you should strive for.
  - EGreg 6y ago
    I am not really a big fan of end-to-end encryption for solving society’s main communication problems, I think people (pseudonymous or not) should be accountable for their speech. But I do believe in empowering people and uniting communities. If you want to run your own social network out of your own servers, you should be able to. The fact that the software to power user friendly communication platforms is scarce is a big problem. They extract rents. They cut you off if they don’t like what you have to say. And worst of all, they concentrate power in the hands of a few people regarding what decisions are to be made. That is actually the source of all this arguing. If you’re arguing whether we should have Title I or Title II, or whether we should use Facebook or Google, Microsoft or Amazon, Democrat and Republican, you’ve already lost. Open source collaboration beats closed source competition every time in the end. Everyone can host their own network and label the map however they want, and so on. No fighting over flags or one size fits all policies! In the 19th century there was a word for this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      > I think people ... should be accountable for their speech. There is certainly some speech which is and should be illegal, but if you optimize communication systems for "accountability" you might end up in a situation which is worse than what we have now. “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.” ― Idi Amin
    - jhardy54 6y ago
      I agree, and that's why I work on Scuttlebutt. But I also think we should do everything in our power to dissuade dangerous folks (example: violent extremists) from using these tools.
    - drdec 6y ago
      >I am not really a big fan of end-to-end encryption for solving society’s main communication problems, I think people (pseudonymous or not) should be accountable for their speech. I think there ought to be an on-line analogue to two consenting adults talking in a private room in one of their homes. Unless I misunderstand you, it doesn't sound like that on-line capability is compatible with your statement.

Okay I’ll bite Just posted our free open source platform we were working on for 10 years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25717417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25717417

oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago
Sorry man not interested in non-federated solutions.
- EGreg 6y ago
  Not sure what you mean by non-federated... Qbix can support many protocols including foaf, matrix, scuttlebutt, DID and so on. You can make it as federated as you wish.
jhardy54 6y ago
> MAGA folks looking for platforms for their "free speech". This is not a target demographic you should strive for.
- EGreg 6y ago
  I am not really a big fan of end-to-end encryption for solving society’s main communication problems, I think people (pseudonymous or not) should be accountable for their speech. But I do believe in empowering people and uniting communities. If you want to run your own social network out of your own servers, you should be able to. The fact that the software to power user friendly communication platforms is scarce is a big problem. They extract rents. They cut you off if they don’t like what you have to say. And worst of all, they concentrate power in the hands of a few people regarding what decisions are to be made. That is actually the source of all this arguing. If you’re arguing whether we should have Title I or Title II, or whether we should use Facebook or Google, Microsoft or Amazon, Democrat and Republican, you’ve already lost. Open source collaboration beats closed source competition every time in the end. Everyone can host their own network and label the map however they want, and so on. No fighting over flags or one size fits all policies! In the 19th century there was a word for this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    > I think people ... should be accountable for their speech. There is certainly some speech which is and should be illegal, but if you optimize communication systems for "accountability" you might end up in a situation which is worse than what we have now. “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.” ― Idi Amin
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    I agree, and that's why I work on Scuttlebutt. But I also think we should do everything in our power to dissuade dangerous folks (example: violent extremists) from using these tools.
  - drdec 6y ago
    >I am not really a big fan of end-to-end encryption for solving society’s main communication problems, I think people (pseudonymous or not) should be accountable for their speech. I think there ought to be an on-line analogue to two consenting adults talking in a private room in one of their homes. Unless I misunderstand you, it doesn't sound like that on-line capability is compatible with your statement.