6 ms·

> I tried for YEARS to appeal it. There are simply no humans working at Google and nobody reads your emails. :( I realize it's complicated, but there are thin

> I tried for YEARS to appeal it. There are simply no humans working at Google and nobody reads your emails. :( I realize it's complicated, but there are things that make me worry the future of the internet might not be so great.

leppr 6y ago
There's a reason for the hype around web3. The more time passes the more pressing the demand for it, and the better the UX becomes.
- rlayton2 6y ago
  Do you have a good resource for how web 3 would work? All I read is hyperbole and "could be"s but I am looking for actual concepts of how it would work. Any ideas?
  - diggan 6y ago
    web3 as a whole is very early and still being built and developed, that's why there is not one definition of web3. The biggest commonality is that the solutions are focused on decentralization and censorship-resistance, as those are two of the main issues plaguing the web today. Imagine the web in the 90s, some people saw promise while others asked themselves what it actually is. Fast forward 5/10/20 years and what web3 is will be a lot more clear as we'll have mainstream web3 applications deployed and used then.
    - 8note 6y ago
      Are those the main issues plaguing the web? I would lean that the foremost problem is radicalization, and that decentralization and censorship resistance will make the internet an even better tool for radicalization than it is today
  - vertis 6y ago
    Web3 means a lot of things to a lot of people. In this context the decentralization enabled by blockchain or federation is probably what the GP is talking about. With a decentralized app you can't be banned in the same way (though this presents other problems). While blockchain based technologies are often cited as an example of Web3, and some of the worst hype offenders are pushing this. It's not exclusively blockchain. In some ways Web3 is a return to earlier internet where there were open protocols rather than everything being controlled by companies. Redecentralize[0] has a great set of founder interviews talking about some of the projects and challenges. To be clear it's not necessarily anti-company, just a recognition that a handful of companies controlling everything is problematic. Coupled with a recognition that running at the scale of the Big 5 is prohibitive (e.g. server costs, preventing malicious actors, people to handle problems). The UX around these things is hard, though getting better. Mastodon[1] is a reasonable alternative to twitter now (doubly so if you cross-post). Gitcoin[2] is a good example of a Web3 app (all the core functions are smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain). There are plenty of example of Web3 apps(dapps) on Webby[3] and DApp.com[4] (though the latter you have to wade through all the Decentralized Finance stuff). [0]: https://redecentralize.org/interviews/ https://redecentralize.org/interviews/ [1]: https://mastodon.social https://mastodon.social [2]: https://gitcoin.co/ https://gitcoin.co/ [3]: https://heywebby.app/webby https://heywebby.app/webby [4]: https://www.dapp.com/topics https://www.dapp.com/topics
    - imagine99 6y ago
      That's actually very interesting. One problem I have started to run into recently however, is that you can't mention the word "blockchain" any more without being laughed out of the room (in some circles), and in many cases rightly so. The word has just been to much vaporware-ified and misused because VCs and other decision-makers were eating it up like crazy. However, it seems like blockchain-based technologies are to be an integral part of web3, or are there alternatives to it? Is there a way to talk about the concept without mentioning blockchain?
      - vertis 6y ago
        Blockchain(s) are certainly one of the building blocks, but it should be possible to talk about what you're building without mentioning the underlying technology. Indeed, it should be somewhat irrelevant unless people want to dig into the detail. That's why efforts like redecentralize are so important. It's more talking about objectives like privacy, censorship resistance, etc. There are a subset of people that go, let's build with "the blockchain" for the hype and another subset that recognizes that blockchains are one of a number of tools in the arsenal of solving a problem. Efforts like Matrix, SSB, OpenBazaar, and IPFS are all 'Web3' technologies without being on the blockchain. If you do need to talk blockchains, two terms that likely aren't so loaded are 'smart contracts' and 'dapps' (distributed apps).
throwaway316943 6y ago
Ha! I’m sorry but it’s already screwed. Compared to where we stood when people were actually arguing for a free and open internet and against centralization and corporatization we have arrived at almost all of their dire predictions and the last few seem to be well on their way. No one is fighting it anymore, they’re just trying to grab the scraps that fall off the table that the big five sit at and hoping they don’t get stomped into oblivion by the giants.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  A lot of the free and open Internet arguments were about copyright and open source, both of which turn out to be almost irrelevant in the face of automated Kafka-esque monopolistic bureaucracies. Turns out being able to pirate MP3s is a poor consolation prize when you can have your startup permabanned from AdSense or Amazon for no good reason, and there's nothing you can do about it. Wrong goal on the wrong sports field.
  - tremon 6y ago
    copyright and open source, both of which turn out to be almost irrelevant in the face of automated Kafka-esque monopolistic bureaucracies. What do you think the free software movement was all about, if it wasn't about avoiding Kafka-esque monopolistic bureaucracies? Read Stallman's "The Right To Read", from 1997.
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      Open source, on the other hand, has been embraced by those automated Kafkaesque monopolistic bureaucracies.
      - skeeter2020 6y ago
        Do you mean the consumption of open source software has been embraced, i.e. they love using free software but are not big fans of the backside of the model?
jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 6y ago
> I realize it's complicated, but there are things that make me worry the future of the internet might not be so great. The solution isn't easy, but it's simple: stop using Amazon (specially AWS), Google (specially AdSense), etc. Once they lose half their annual revenue, they'll start taking things seriously.
- ctvo 6y ago
  Asking for sacrifice from others is often hard, simple, and ineffective. > Stop eating calories and you'll lose weight As America approaches 50% obesity > Stop using AWS, Microsoft Office, AdSense, and Instagram (If we want to talk about domineering monopolies) Sure. Let me count the ways you've inconvenienced me. A better approach would be to provide a viable alternative to change the underlying systems that put us in this state. That's never simple though.
- TomSwirly 6y ago
  Now, you know these things aren't going to happen, not in any quantity to make the slightest difference. So why even suggest it? Strong regulation is the only solution. The Magic Invisible Hand just is not working.
- Brian_K_White 6y ago
  It's like they didn't hear you say "the solution isn't easy", and so they had to say what you already said, and probably feel like they are saying something smart and worth hearing as they do.
- wly_cdgr 6y ago
  You will never, ever get a critical mass until your freedom-based burger tastes better than a real Google burger. It's not "not easy". It's Impossible
  - angry_octet 6y ago
    God damn, now I want to eat a burger.
zwaps 6y ago
My worry about AI isn't Skynet and Terminators. It's that Data Scientists don't realize most of their models still simply fit a conditional expectation - and given all their power, it's going to be us, not Amazon or Google, who has to adapt to the distribution as not to repeatedly get hit as some sort of outlier. It's a dystopia where AI works because of us trying to conform to it, because otherwise we are out of luck. At some point, we self select into Amazon-humans, Google-humans etc.
- 317070 6y ago
  > It's a dystopia where AI works because of us trying to conform to it, because otherwise we are out of luck But all technology is like that. Cars work, because we conformed our environment to it. Email works, because we conform to checking our mailboxes regularly. Telephones work, because we pick them up when they ring. If you are interested in knowing more, the whole work of the french philosopher Jacques Ellul is based around this idea. AI is not going to be any different in this respect. It is going to be us meeting it halfway. And that is going to be dystopic in the same way as it has been with other types of technology.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    Wow, not sure why you're getting all the down-votes. I don't necessarily agree with you, but it's an interesting perspective regardless. You also touch on the Amish approach to new technology. Each new thing is assessed for impact on life/tradition/etc and adoption is limited accordingly. For example, phones might be considered useful enough to have one per town, but distracting enough to be kept out of individual homes. Or, a computer might be allowed in the back-office of a wood shop for purposes for managing online sales, but nowhere else in the community.
  - andrewzah 6y ago
    The difference is we have a choice in those matters. I.e. my telephone does not work in that sense, because I will not pick up for an unknown number in most cases. A communicable human is on the other end. With "AI" (machine learning / neural nets), we're letting opaque boxes arbitrarily control and ban accounts at will. It's like forcing people to use cars that randomly decide that it won't drive that day for no good reason. "AI is not going to be any different in this respect" The other examples all include accountable humans, "AI" here does not. We're already seeing issues of machine learning applying sexist biases for example because of datasets and poor training. What are you going to do, hold google, or any other faceless corporation, accountable for its bad translations? Good luck. It's only going to get worse in the future as other stratified aspects of society get cemented by "AI".

leppr 6y ago

There's a reason for the hype around web3. The more time passes the more pressing the demand for it, and the better the UX becomes.

rlayton2 6y ago
Do you have a good resource for how web 3 would work? All I read is hyperbole and "could be"s but I am looking for actual concepts of how it would work. Any ideas?
- diggan 6y ago
  web3 as a whole is very early and still being built and developed, that's why there is not one definition of web3. The biggest commonality is that the solutions are focused on decentralization and censorship-resistance, as those are two of the main issues plaguing the web today. Imagine the web in the 90s, some people saw promise while others asked themselves what it actually is. Fast forward 5/10/20 years and what web3 is will be a lot more clear as we'll have mainstream web3 applications deployed and used then.
  - 8note 6y ago
    Are those the main issues plaguing the web? I would lean that the foremost problem is radicalization, and that decentralization and censorship resistance will make the internet an even better tool for radicalization than it is today
- vertis 6y ago
  Web3 means a lot of things to a lot of people. In this context the decentralization enabled by blockchain or federation is probably what the GP is talking about. With a decentralized app you can't be banned in the same way (though this presents other problems). While blockchain based technologies are often cited as an example of Web3, and some of the worst hype offenders are pushing this. It's not exclusively blockchain. In some ways Web3 is a return to earlier internet where there were open protocols rather than everything being controlled by companies. Redecentralize[0] has a great set of founder interviews talking about some of the projects and challenges. To be clear it's not necessarily anti-company, just a recognition that a handful of companies controlling everything is problematic. Coupled with a recognition that running at the scale of the Big 5 is prohibitive (e.g. server costs, preventing malicious actors, people to handle problems). The UX around these things is hard, though getting better. Mastodon[1] is a reasonable alternative to twitter now (doubly so if you cross-post). Gitcoin[2] is a good example of a Web3 app (all the core functions are smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain). There are plenty of example of Web3 apps(dapps) on Webby[3] and DApp.com[4] (though the latter you have to wade through all the Decentralized Finance stuff). [0]: https://redecentralize.org/interviews/ https://redecentralize.org/interviews/ [1]: https://mastodon.social https://mastodon.social [2]: https://gitcoin.co/ https://gitcoin.co/ [3]: https://heywebby.app/webby https://heywebby.app/webby [4]: https://www.dapp.com/topics https://www.dapp.com/topics
  - imagine99 6y ago
    That's actually very interesting. One problem I have started to run into recently however, is that you can't mention the word "blockchain" any more without being laughed out of the room (in some circles), and in many cases rightly so. The word has just been to much vaporware-ified and misused because VCs and other decision-makers were eating it up like crazy. However, it seems like blockchain-based technologies are to be an integral part of web3, or are there alternatives to it? Is there a way to talk about the concept without mentioning blockchain?
    - vertis 6y ago
      Blockchain(s) are certainly one of the building blocks, but it should be possible to talk about what you're building without mentioning the underlying technology. Indeed, it should be somewhat irrelevant unless people want to dig into the detail. That's why efforts like redecentralize are so important. It's more talking about objectives like privacy, censorship resistance, etc. There are a subset of people that go, let's build with "the blockchain" for the hype and another subset that recognizes that blockchains are one of a number of tools in the arsenal of solving a problem. Efforts like Matrix, SSB, OpenBazaar, and IPFS are all 'Web3' technologies without being on the blockchain. If you do need to talk blockchains, two terms that likely aren't so loaded are 'smart contracts' and 'dapps' (distributed apps).

throwaway316943 6y ago

Ha! I’m sorry but it’s already screwed. Compared to where we stood when people were actually arguing for a free and open internet and against centralization and corporatization we have arrived at almost all of their dire predictions and the last few seem to be well on their way. No one is fighting it anymore, they’re just trying to grab the scraps that fall off the table that the big five sit at and hoping they don’t get stomped into oblivion by the giants.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
A lot of the free and open Internet arguments were about copyright and open source, both of which turn out to be almost irrelevant in the face of automated Kafka-esque monopolistic bureaucracies. Turns out being able to pirate MP3s is a poor consolation prize when you can have your startup permabanned from AdSense or Amazon for no good reason, and there's nothing you can do about it. Wrong goal on the wrong sports field.
- tremon 6y ago
  copyright and open source, both of which turn out to be almost irrelevant in the face of automated Kafka-esque monopolistic bureaucracies. What do you think the free software movement was all about, if it wasn't about avoiding Kafka-esque monopolistic bureaucracies? Read Stallman's "The Right To Read", from 1997.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    Open source, on the other hand, has been embraced by those automated Kafkaesque monopolistic bureaucracies.
    - skeeter2020 6y ago
      Do you mean the consumption of open source software has been embraced, i.e. they love using free software but are not big fans of the backside of the model?

jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 6y ago

> I realize it's complicated, but there are things that make me worry the future of the internet might not be so great. The solution isn't easy, but it's simple: stop using Amazon (specially AWS), Google (specially AdSense), etc. Once they lose half their annual revenue, they'll start taking things seriously.

ctvo 6y ago
Asking for sacrifice from others is often hard, simple, and ineffective. > Stop eating calories and you'll lose weight As America approaches 50% obesity > Stop using AWS, Microsoft Office, AdSense, and Instagram (If we want to talk about domineering monopolies) Sure. Let me count the ways you've inconvenienced me. A better approach would be to provide a viable alternative to change the underlying systems that put us in this state. That's never simple though.
TomSwirly 6y ago
Now, you know these things aren't going to happen, not in any quantity to make the slightest difference. So why even suggest it? Strong regulation is the only solution. The Magic Invisible Hand just is not working.
Brian_K_White 6y ago
It's like they didn't hear you say "the solution isn't easy", and so they had to say what you already said, and probably feel like they are saying something smart and worth hearing as they do.
wly_cdgr 6y ago
You will never, ever get a critical mass until your freedom-based burger tastes better than a real Google burger. It's not "not easy". It's Impossible
- angry_octet 6y ago
  God damn, now I want to eat a burger.

zwaps 6y ago

My worry about AI isn't Skynet and Terminators. It's that Data Scientists don't realize most of their models still simply fit a conditional expectation - and given all their power, it's going to be us, not Amazon or Google, who has to adapt to the distribution as not to repeatedly get hit as some sort of outlier. It's a dystopia where AI works because of us trying to conform to it, because otherwise we are out of luck. At some point, we self select into Amazon-humans, Google-humans etc.

317070 6y ago
> It's a dystopia where AI works because of us trying to conform to it, because otherwise we are out of luck But all technology is like that. Cars work, because we conformed our environment to it. Email works, because we conform to checking our mailboxes regularly. Telephones work, because we pick them up when they ring. If you are interested in knowing more, the whole work of the french philosopher Jacques Ellul is based around this idea. AI is not going to be any different in this respect. It is going to be us meeting it halfway. And that is going to be dystopic in the same way as it has been with other types of technology.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  Wow, not sure why you're getting all the down-votes. I don't necessarily agree with you, but it's an interesting perspective regardless. You also touch on the Amish approach to new technology. Each new thing is assessed for impact on life/tradition/etc and adoption is limited accordingly. For example, phones might be considered useful enough to have one per town, but distracting enough to be kept out of individual homes. Or, a computer might be allowed in the back-office of a wood shop for purposes for managing online sales, but nowhere else in the community.
- andrewzah 6y ago
  The difference is we have a choice in those matters. I.e. my telephone does not work in that sense, because I will not pick up for an unknown number in most cases. A communicable human is on the other end. With "AI" (machine learning / neural nets), we're letting opaque boxes arbitrarily control and ban accounts at will. It's like forcing people to use cars that randomly decide that it won't drive that day for no good reason. "AI is not going to be any different in this respect" The other examples all include accountable humans, "AI" here does not. We're already seeing issues of machine learning applying sexist biases for example because of datasets and poor training. What are you going to do, hold google, or any other faceless corporation, accountable for its bad translations? Good luck. It's only going to get worse in the future as other stratified aspects of society get cemented by "AI".