3 ms·
I feel like it's been quite a while since I saw anyone talking about IPFS, but I used to hear about it not infrequently. I don't know if this is because it was
by abeppu 5y ago
I feel like it's been quite a while since I saw anyone talking about IPFS, but I used to hear about it not infrequently. I don't know if this is because it was too nerdy, or too misaligned with the incentives of most organizations (it's scary for some to not be able to unpublish), or because it comes with some privacy sacrifices, or perhaps it just matters less when hardly any page is actually static any longer.
But, for guarding against "published", supposedly static material disappearing, or changing silently, and for removing a short list of organizations from being responsible for preserving content, IPFS or something like it seems well-suited. Anyone who cares to preserve something can. Any change is noticeable.
- jhunter1016 5y agoYep. I find it odd that the article doesn’t even mention IPFS. Brewster Khale is a big proponent of IPFS, so that would have been a perfect opportunity to bring it up. IPFS has its flaws, but content addressing and immutability are powerful.