3 ms·
I got to the end of the article still unsure of what the author means by “work”. All his examples work just fine; most work brilliantly for their intended purpo
by leephillips 5y ago
I got to the end of the article still unsure of what the author means by “work”. All his examples work just fine; most work brilliantly for their intended purpose. Does he mean that they are not effective for generating profit for some sleazy corporation? I don’t see why I should care.
- jyap 5y agoThe article doesn’t make any proper arguments or present any logical flow. All I can gather is the author once worked in blockchain and is now burnt out by the monetary side. Everything they describe such as Git and email work fine. A strong technology will have SaS offerings but also still be usable from a CLI perspective. Article title is click bait.
- bawolff 5y agoI think the point the author is making is that none of these systems are a distributed panacea free from corporate overlords. All of them are either dying/obscure (irc, matrix, rss) or have been infested with powerful actors who have become de-facto centralized nodes (email, WWW, RSS, git). I'm not sure how that relates with the authors stated thesis of profit motives being misaligned. I guess they're arguing that for a system to be succesful it needs corporate investment, people make money out of controlling a centralized node, you cant make money out of the anarchism of a true decentralized system, hence decentralized systems will either fail or be subverted by centralized actors (maybe im reading in my own beliefs?). Which may be true, but i didn't find the evidence presented particularly compelling, and the structure of the argument was confusing.