3 ms·

The biggest blunder for me is that there were usable decentralized communication options before that were popular, but because of trying to monetize user's data

by zekica 5y ago

The biggest blunder for me is that there were usable decentralized communication options before that were popular, but because of trying to monetize user's data FAANG started to tighten their grip on any decentralized solution, and I think they succeeded. They are already trying do to email the same thing they did to XMPP and RSS.

pjmlp 5y ago
Before Internet we had centralized networking, BBS, Compserve, and similar online services accessed point to point via modem services. What is old is new again.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  That's only because running TCP/IP over a 1200 bits per seconds connection was close to impossible, but Fidonet had > 40 thousands nodes connect by 1990, so decentralization was already a thing back then. When modems became fast enough to handle a TCP/IP connection it was ~1994 and by then Internet was already (relatively) cheap and available.
cpach 5y ago
I’m not convinced that XMPP is actually such a great protocol. (I used it for many years.)
- lrem 5y ago
  It's objectively awful... But when you step back a tiny bit, that doesn't matter. What matters is the inter-organizational community it achieved. If these organizations wanted to continue, they could come up with a negotiation technique like in http - both ends can use whatever fancy thing they both support, but fall back unto riding dinosaurs if that's the only thing that works.
- hansel_der 5y ago
  email likewise lives on "not so great" protocols. "perfect is the enemy of good"
- twobitshifter 5y ago
  Do we know how great the centralized protocols are?
  - cpach 5y ago
    AFAICT there’s no better secure IM protocol than Signal’s.
  - Jenda_ 5y ago
    They are "great" from the perspective that the non-tech-savvy user somehow can get into using these. This did not work for XMPP (they need to learn that they need to pick a provider and a client; then they need to deal with entering the credentials into the client; then they need to solve problems like history synchronization and access from multiple devices; and finally voice/video/filesharing over XMPP is a disaster).
    - MattJ100 5y ago
      I agree onboarding can be a hurdle (for any decentralized network). These days many XMPP clients support invitations which make the process much easier (see https://blog.prosody.im/great-invitations/ https://blog.prosody.im/great-invitations/ ). This easy onboarding is a fundamental part of Snikket - allowing you to bring groups of people onto XMPP by just sharing a link with them.
- rakoo 5y ago
  I often swing between longing for a federated protocol that can be managed by technical people and used by everyone, like XMPP, and something more P2P to reduce centralization and allow everyone to instantly "open an account" with no need for technical skills, but that still needs some kind of relays for asynchronous communication, like ssb. None are technically perfect (although I really like the simplicity and extensibility of XMPP) but in the end what matters is not that: it's about how the protocols are used, how they allow all of us to communicate, how they give more power to those who aren't already using the internet to exchange information. And that is not a technical problem

by zekica 5y ago

pjmlp 5y ago

Before Internet we had centralized networking, BBS, Compserve, and similar online services accessed point to point via modem services. What is old is new again.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
That's only because running TCP/IP over a 1200 bits per seconds connection was close to impossible, but Fidonet had > 40 thousands nodes connect by 1990, so decentralization was already a thing back then. When modems became fast enough to handle a TCP/IP connection it was ~1994 and by then Internet was already (relatively) cheap and available.

cpach 5y ago

I’m not convinced that XMPP is actually such a great protocol. (I used it for many years.)

lrem 5y ago
It's objectively awful... But when you step back a tiny bit, that doesn't matter. What matters is the inter-organizational community it achieved. If these organizations wanted to continue, they could come up with a negotiation technique like in http - both ends can use whatever fancy thing they both support, but fall back unto riding dinosaurs if that's the only thing that works.
hansel_der 5y ago
email likewise lives on "not so great" protocols. "perfect is the enemy of good"
twobitshifter 5y ago
Do we know how great the centralized protocols are?
- cpach 5y ago
  AFAICT there’s no better secure IM protocol than Signal’s.
- Jenda_ 5y ago
  They are "great" from the perspective that the non-tech-savvy user somehow can get into using these. This did not work for XMPP (they need to learn that they need to pick a provider and a client; then they need to deal with entering the credentials into the client; then they need to solve problems like history synchronization and access from multiple devices; and finally voice/video/filesharing over XMPP is a disaster).
  - MattJ100 5y ago
    I agree onboarding can be a hurdle (for any decentralized network). These days many XMPP clients support invitations which make the process much easier (see https://blog.prosody.im/great-invitations/ https://blog.prosody.im/great-invitations/ ). This easy onboarding is a fundamental part of Snikket - allowing you to bring groups of people onto XMPP by just sharing a link with them.
rakoo 5y ago
I often swing between longing for a federated protocol that can be managed by technical people and used by everyone, like XMPP, and something more P2P to reduce centralization and allow everyone to instantly "open an account" with no need for technical skills, but that still needs some kind of relays for asynchronous communication, like ssb. None are technically perfect (although I really like the simplicity and extensibility of XMPP) but in the end what matters is not that: it's about how the protocols are used, how they allow all of us to communicate, how they give more power to those who aren't already using the internet to exchange information. And that is not a technical problem