4 ms·

It's new, so I don't think there are many out there yet. I do hope that this changes the landscape of the ecosystem for 'decentralization.' It's not supposed

It's new, so I don't think there are many out there yet. I do hope that this changes the landscape of the ecosystem for 'decentralization.' It's not supposed to be about tokens or organizational marketing hype. First, it's about free speech and freedom of information. "De-platforming" is now extinct. Only then, can you even begin to discuss anything else. I'm very thankful to WebTorrent, DMT, Handshake and Electron for making things possible.

mrtksn 5y ago
Thanks, the work done is definitely cool but, as with any other decentralization project, I’m yet to find the content use cases. The only two kinds of successful content types that I’m aware of are pirated movies on Torrent and cryptocurrencies on the blockchain. They all depend on centralized discovery(torrent websites and exchanges). Which makes me wonder, are these decentralized websites or social media platforms attacking the right problems?
- publiush 5y ago
  If someone wants to make a new kind of torrent website with federalist that doesn't rely on centralized servers, they now can! It would be helpful for me when I download my Ubuntu ISOs. ;)
- rektide 5y ago
  > I’m yet to find the content use cases. It's an alternative transport, not application layer. If you can imagine doing anything with the world wide web , or ftp, you can imagine what this is for. It can transport hypertext files around, or whatever other file type you want. In the web case, it'd just be some local http files you could open in a local file origin. There'd be no server. But that's still a way to exchange whatever art or media you could ever imagine. We are bounded only by imagination. The internet is built around the Internet Protocol (IP), a way of streaming data arbitrarily from one computer to another. It has been up to us to imagine uses, to chase new possibilities. What do you think the use cases for IP are? Can you see what that made possible? Your question is in effect that, and trying to grasp at how broad, how possible, how potentiated this great work is is dauntingly hard, for we could share any type of content we want with either.
Latty 5y ago
Deplatforming still exists while any curated platform still exists, which will (hopefully) be always. It shouldn't be possible for you to end up with nowhere to speak, that's why the public square exists, and I accept there is a need for an online public square that is currently pseudo-fufilled by private social media sites, but that doesn't mean deplatforming is bad. Freedom of expression includes the freedom not to endorse or express an idea, and platforms shouldn't be forced to allow people to use them to amplify their speech, as then that right is violated, enforced expression is just as harmful as enforced silence.
- bluedays 5y ago
  You seem to be arguing yourself in a circle.
  - Latty 5y ago
    Would you care to expand? I think my point is sound and relatively simple: deplatforming isn't the problem, the lack of a public square is. Deplatforming is, in itself, a form of protected expression.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      If the prohibition of deplatforming is why we need a public square, it does sound inconsistent to say deplatforming isn't the problem. "The problem isn't deplatforming -- it's the lack of places where deplatforming is prohibited."
      - Latty 5y ago
        How is that inconsistent? Just because it's good to have access to something doesn't mean we want it everywhere. This goes for a lot of things. It would be a problem if there was nowhere you could urinate, but that doesn't make rules against urinating in the street bad. It is important that there are places you can't be censored, but that doesn't mean every place should be forced to be unfiltered firehoses. Curation has value. Should every newspaper be forced to platform anyone who sends them an article? Enforced speech is just as harmful as prohibited speech. People should have the right to choose who they platform.

mrtksn 5y ago

Thanks, the work done is definitely cool but, as with any other decentralization project, I’m yet to find the content use cases. The only two kinds of successful content types that I’m aware of are pirated movies on Torrent and cryptocurrencies on the blockchain. They all depend on centralized discovery(torrent websites and exchanges). Which makes me wonder, are these decentralized websites or social media platforms attacking the right problems?

publiush 5y ago
If someone wants to make a new kind of torrent website with federalist that doesn't rely on centralized servers, they now can! It would be helpful for me when I download my Ubuntu ISOs. ;)
rektide 5y ago
> I’m yet to find the content use cases. It's an alternative transport, not application layer. If you can imagine doing anything with the world wide web , or ftp, you can imagine what this is for. It can transport hypertext files around, or whatever other file type you want. In the web case, it'd just be some local http files you could open in a local file origin. There'd be no server. But that's still a way to exchange whatever art or media you could ever imagine. We are bounded only by imagination. The internet is built around the Internet Protocol (IP), a way of streaming data arbitrarily from one computer to another. It has been up to us to imagine uses, to chase new possibilities. What do you think the use cases for IP are? Can you see what that made possible? Your question is in effect that, and trying to grasp at how broad, how possible, how potentiated this great work is is dauntingly hard, for we could share any type of content we want with either.

Latty 5y ago

Deplatforming still exists while any curated platform still exists, which will (hopefully) be always. It shouldn't be possible for you to end up with nowhere to speak, that's why the public square exists, and I accept there is a need for an online public square that is currently pseudo-fufilled by private social media sites, but that doesn't mean deplatforming is bad. Freedom of expression includes the freedom not to endorse or express an idea, and platforms shouldn't be forced to allow people to use them to amplify their speech, as then that right is violated, enforced expression is just as harmful as enforced silence.

bluedays 5y ago
You seem to be arguing yourself in a circle.
- Latty 5y ago
  Would you care to expand? I think my point is sound and relatively simple: deplatforming isn't the problem, the lack of a public square is. Deplatforming is, in itself, a form of protected expression.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    If the prohibition of deplatforming is why we need a public square, it does sound inconsistent to say deplatforming isn't the problem. "The problem isn't deplatforming -- it's the lack of places where deplatforming is prohibited."
    - Latty 5y ago
      How is that inconsistent? Just because it's good to have access to something doesn't mean we want it everywhere. This goes for a lot of things. It would be a problem if there was nowhere you could urinate, but that doesn't make rules against urinating in the street bad. It is important that there are places you can't be censored, but that doesn't mean every place should be forced to be unfiltered firehoses. Curation has value. Should every newspaper be forced to platform anyone who sends them an article? Enforced speech is just as harmful as prohibited speech. People should have the right to choose who they platform.