3 ms·
Philosophically, isn't it wrong to process billions of events in real time? I mean, the magnitude of the moral hazard is astounding. The alternative isn't to st
by javajosh 5y ago
Philosophically, isn't it wrong to process billions of events in real time? I mean, the magnitude of the moral hazard is astounding. The alternative isn't to stop sending messages, but rather to not put them through a bottleneck like Twitter. This would have the dual benefit of a) not giving central control over messages and b) not requiring exotic solutions.
I fear that technologists (including myself) are fascinated by the exotic solutions required by extreme centralization, and are more than happy to solve those rather than question the need for them in the first place.
- LindyTalker 5y agoHuh? People are using Twitter to create these events? Who else would you want to process it? It's not a bottleneck to put things through Twitter if people are literally using Twitter
- staticassertion 5y agoI assume they're suggesting some sort of peer to peer system.
- javajosh 5y agoYes. p2p systems would be the alternative and would, as a whole, process billions of messages but in a distributed way where each node only processes ~100. I'm further suggesting there there is a relationship between scale and ethics, via moral hazard, that is worth exploring. Too bad I'm getting downvoted instead of engaged with.
- burnished 5y agoYou haven't really explored what or why the moral hazard could be, so your current comment really sounds like "twitter big, ergo twitter evil". Its sort of on you to surface your idea instead of expecting strangers to engage with you - you seem perfectly pleasant but it frequently leads to very negative interactions.