3 ms·

There's always talk about decentralizing content platforms but these decentralized non-blockchain social network and messaging protocols have existed for years:

There's always talk about decentralizing content platforms but these decentralized non-blockchain social network and messaging protocols have existed for years: - Scuttlebutt - GNUnet - Secureshare - Fereenet - ZeroNet - Retroshare - Diaspora - Mastadon - Matrix - Cabal Decentralized platforms put more responsibility on the user (key management, account recovery, content hosting, etc) which is unlikely to get mass adoption from mainstream users unless the decentralized platform is as easy to use as twitter.

emptyparadise 6y ago
They exist, but I'm worried that they can't break out because of network effects and lock in by the big players. What would be a good way to make these platforms mainstream? Would you support some sort of a mandatory requirement to federate for the big players? Of course, they would still be able to refuse to talk to instances that violate their own policies.
- krapp 6y ago
  >Of course, they would still be able to refuse to talk to instances that violate their own policies. But isn't that ability exactly what many people consider a violation of free speech on mainstream social media platforms, only applies to accounts rather than instances?
  - emptyparadise 6y ago
    If mainstream platforms were federated, you could move to a third instance that would communicate both with the big instance and the banned instance. Hell, you could even host your own instance and still be able to talk to people on the big social network. That's the missing piece that would make those "you don't have to use that website" arguments valid since it would greatly lower the cost of moving away from one social media website to another.
swirepe 6y ago
For anyone scrolling past this list, I had a lot of fun with Retroshare. It's like the Napster we never had, but with gardening books instead of music.

emptyparadise 6y ago

They exist, but I'm worried that they can't break out because of network effects and lock in by the big players. What would be a good way to make these platforms mainstream? Would you support some sort of a mandatory requirement to federate for the big players? Of course, they would still be able to refuse to talk to instances that violate their own policies.

krapp 6y ago
>Of course, they would still be able to refuse to talk to instances that violate their own policies. But isn't that ability exactly what many people consider a violation of free speech on mainstream social media platforms, only applies to accounts rather than instances?
- emptyparadise 6y ago
  If mainstream platforms were federated, you could move to a third instance that would communicate both with the big instance and the banned instance. Hell, you could even host your own instance and still be able to talk to people on the big social network. That's the missing piece that would make those "you don't have to use that website" arguments valid since it would greatly lower the cost of moving away from one social media website to another.

swirepe 6y ago

For anyone scrolling past this list, I had a lot of fun with Retroshare. It's like the Napster we never had, but with gardening books instead of music.