3 ms·

Blockchains may be generally less efficient for storing and processing lots of data (though there are specialized blockchains for storage, for GPU rendering, fo

Blockchains may be generally less efficient for storing and processing lots of data (though there are specialized blockchains for storage, for GPU rendering, for computation, and so on), but the flip side of this is, do most users of web2 services want their data collected, processed, analysed, rebundled, and resold to the extent that it is? In some cases, maybe. But I think what pays for the servers running all these services is the advertising industry. Whether you like it or not, you are paying for the services you use, but in ways that are often opaque to you. Even if you agreed to let Facebook use your data, you have no transparency into what exactly they're doing with it, and you don't benefit from it beyond access to their platform. In many instances, you'd be fine with a subset of the functionality (do we really need AI-curated news feeds designed to keep us infinitely scrolling)?

tomrod 5y ago
> do most users of web2 services want their data collected, processed, analysed, rebundled, and resold to the extent that it is? People vote with their feet. At least today, the answer is "yes." A compelling alternative may change their mind. A blockchain-based social media network is difficult to image doing so for the majority of people.
iterati 5y ago
Yes, many users DO want (or at least do not care enough to walk away from services that abuse) their data to have all those things done to them because they get to use the service for free. The concern over use of private data is restricted to a very small subsection of the population, and the vast majority will be more than happy to keep using free services that abuse their data over paying for something with a subset of features the free option has.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> but the flip side of this is, do most users of web2 services want their data collected, processed, analysed, rebundled, and resold to the extent that it is? Facebook doesn’t sell user data. Google doesn’t sell user data. Twitter doesn’t sell user data. They sell ads. The user data is strictly kept internal to the company because selling it would weaken their market advantage. This is one of those weird myths that has been propagated by fear-mongering journalists and politicians. You’d think tech people would be the first to call out this logical error, but for some reason it has been embraced as the ground truth despite being trivially easy to fact check. > Whether you like it or not, you are paying for the services you use, but in ways that are often opaque to you. In 2021, the trope that “If you’re not paying, you’re the product” has been repeated to everyone a thousand times over and it’s old news. But paying for a product doesn’t mean that your data and usage patterns aren’t still being extracted for profit. Just look at smart TVs. Blockchain doesn’t magically change this fact. It’s theoretically possible to design systems where certain types of data are obscured or encrypted, but it’s a huge leap to assume that web3 services will, by default, encrypt everything and obscure access patterns. Just look at how easy it is to track Bitcoin transactions between wallets publicly.

tomrod 5y ago

> do most users of web2 services want their data collected, processed, analysed, rebundled, and resold to the extent that it is? People vote with their feet. At least today, the answer is "yes." A compelling alternative may change their mind. A blockchain-based social media network is difficult to image doing so for the majority of people.

iterati 5y ago

Yes, many users DO want (or at least do not care enough to walk away from services that abuse) their data to have all those things done to them because they get to use the service for free. The concern over use of private data is restricted to a very small subsection of the population, and the vast majority will be more than happy to keep using free services that abuse their data over paying for something with a subset of features the free option has.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> but the flip side of this is, do most users of web2 services want their data collected, processed, analysed, rebundled, and resold to the extent that it is? Facebook doesn’t sell user data. Google doesn’t sell user data. Twitter doesn’t sell user data. They sell ads. The user data is strictly kept internal to the company because selling it would weaken their market advantage. This is one of those weird myths that has been propagated by fear-mongering journalists and politicians. You’d think tech people would be the first to call out this logical error, but for some reason it has been embraced as the ground truth despite being trivially easy to fact check. > Whether you like it or not, you are paying for the services you use, but in ways that are often opaque to you. In 2021, the trope that “If you’re not paying, you’re the product” has been repeated to everyone a thousand times over and it’s old news. But paying for a product doesn’t mean that your data and usage patterns aren’t still being extracted for profit. Just look at smart TVs. Blockchain doesn’t magically change this fact. It’s theoretically possible to design systems where certain types of data are obscured or encrypted, but it’s a huge leap to assume that web3 services will, by default, encrypt everything and obscure access patterns. Just look at how easy it is to track Bitcoin transactions between wallets publicly.