3 ms·

> That you can't see past your own experiences and prejudices says much more about you than it does about centralization vs. decentralization. I get why you ca

> That you can't see past your own experiences and prejudices says much more about you than it does about centralization vs. decentralization. I get why you came to this conclusion, but you're pretty far off from understanding my actual point which had nothing to do with decentralization. I'm actually a fan of decentralization. There are obviously technical means of solving the failure case I shared. I'm not trying to generalize my experience to everyone. Actually, that is kind of the exact opposite of my point. I'm saying that the problems in social media aren't technical, but social, because people are different. > It hasn't been tried at any real scale and hasn't gained a lot of traction because of the perverse incentives of asymmetrical bandwidth, user-hostile TOS and the willingness of companies to burn cash in order to stomp out/acquire any other group that attempts to compete with them. My core point was that the problems aren't simple, because they aren't technical, and you're kind of making that point as well now.

nobody9999 5y ago
>I get why you came to this conclusion, but you're pretty far off from understanding my actual point which had nothing to do with decentralization. I'm actually a fan of decentralization. There are obviously technical means of solving the failure case I shared. I'm not trying to generalize my experience to everyone. Actually, that is kind of the exact opposite of my point. I'm saying that the problems in social media aren't technical, but social, because people are different. You're right. I didn't get that from what you said at all. Which is likely my fault. I'll go back later and re-read the comment to which I replied to confirm that. >My core point was that the problems aren't simple, because they aren't technical, and you're kind of making that point as well now. The person you originally replied to didn't say the problems were simple. They said that the solution was simple. And I agree. The solution is quite simple. So much so that in a previous comment[0] I noted how surprised I am that it isn't much more broadly discussed. However, Implementing such a solution at scale, given the current barriers is, as you imply, not a simple matter. On that point we definitely agree. I'd add that those barriers don't just incentivize centralization of social media and community discourse, it also incentivizes centralization of most everything in the digital universe. that includes hosting of internet-facing apps, services and other content, which (IMHO) reduces competition, creates arbitrage opportunities to suck value out of existing business sectors without adding real value, and destroys locally-based businesses and business communities. My core point is that, as a society it behooves us to knock down those barriers. Chief of which are the monopolistic ISPs, their asymmetric bandwidth and abusive TOS for "consumer" connections. When most or all of us can simply and reliably (the technical tools are already available, as you correctly point out) host our own content, whether they be videos of the grand-kids, in-house restaurant/retail store ordering systems, and all manner of other apps/services, etc., etc., etc., we can shun these centralized services and avoid the many harms (engagement algorithms, "targeted" advertising, giving corporations the power to decide what speech is acceptable, rent-seeking "apps", etc.) caused by the centralization due to those perverse incentives. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29112551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29112551 Edit: Cleaned up my prose slightly.

nobody9999 5y ago

>I get why you came to this conclusion, but you're pretty far off from understanding my actual point which had nothing to do with decentralization. I'm actually a fan of decentralization. There are obviously technical means of solving the failure case I shared. I'm not trying to generalize my experience to everyone. Actually, that is kind of the exact opposite of my point. I'm saying that the problems in social media aren't technical, but social, because people are different. You're right. I didn't get that from what you said at all. Which is likely my fault. I'll go back later and re-read the comment to which I replied to confirm that. >My core point was that the problems aren't simple, because they aren't technical, and you're kind of making that point as well now. The person you originally replied to didn't say the problems were simple. They said that the solution was simple. And I agree. The solution is quite simple. So much so that in a previous comment[0] I noted how surprised I am that it isn't much more broadly discussed. However, Implementing such a solution at scale, given the current barriers is, as you imply, not a simple matter. On that point we definitely agree. I'd add that those barriers don't just incentivize centralization of social media and community discourse, it also incentivizes centralization of most everything in the digital universe. that includes hosting of internet-facing apps, services and other content, which (IMHO) reduces competition, creates arbitrage opportunities to suck value out of existing business sectors without adding real value, and destroys locally-based businesses and business communities. My core point is that, as a society it behooves us to knock down those barriers. Chief of which are the monopolistic ISPs, their asymmetric bandwidth and abusive TOS for "consumer" connections. When most or all of us can simply and reliably (the technical tools are already available, as you correctly point out) host our own content, whether they be videos of the grand-kids, in-house restaurant/retail store ordering systems, and all manner of other apps/services, etc., etc., etc., we can shun these centralized services and avoid the many harms (engagement algorithms, "targeted" advertising, giving corporations the power to decide what speech is acceptable, rent-seeking "apps", etc.) caused by the centralization due to those perverse incentives. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29112551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29112551 Edit: Cleaned up my prose slightly.