3 ms·

What the author essentially is asking for are public services. They just want a term to justify not having to think about the million other problems with runnin

What the author essentially is asking for are public services. They just want a term to justify not having to think about the million other problems with running such a service. The typical "I'm a computer person, I can solve any problem with just code" thing. If you want "open" public services, form a co-op or nonprofit to develop the service. Make all users 'members' who fund it. Make both the workers and users the owners. Create a public independent board to oversee it. Put any profit back into the service. The architecture will not matter.

rgbrgb 5y ago
This is a cool idea. Any successful examples of this happening that you can think of? I vaguely remember some co-op uber alternatives but haven't heard of them taking off without regulatory intervention (banning uber). Edit: I would think the problems would be around consensus (getting people moving in the same direction) and lack of incentive (getting people moving at all).
Jedd 5y ago
> What the author essentially is asking for are public services. They just want a term to justify not having to think about the million other problems with running such a service. I feel this is somewhat harsh reading. From TFA: "Even if someone were to figure it out, the system is probably designed to be a globally scalable service, not a small clone being hosted for the benefit of a few." I'm in the same camp as the author -- I appreciate the current public service, but don't expect someone else to do everything for me here if/when this service seizes up. I'd appreciate being able to replicate the features of the extant globally-scaleable existing system into something that would keep my needs serviced. Cost-wise, the author does not seem to be demanding something for nothing, or on-going actions from someone else.

3 ms·

What the author essentially is asking for are public services. They just want a term to justify not having to think about the million other problems with runnin

by throwaway984393 5y ago

rgbrgb 5y ago
This is a cool idea. Any successful examples of this happening that you can think of? I vaguely remember some co-op uber alternatives but haven't heard of them taking off without regulatory intervention (banning uber). Edit: I would think the problems would be around consensus (getting people moving in the same direction) and lack of incentive (getting people moving at all).
Jedd 5y ago
> What the author essentially is asking for are public services. They just want a term to justify not having to think about the million other problems with running such a service. I feel this is somewhat harsh reading. From TFA: "Even if someone were to figure it out, the system is probably designed to be a globally scalable service, not a small clone being hosted for the benefit of a few." I'm in the same camp as the author -- I appreciate the current public service, but don't expect someone else to do everything for me here if/when this service seizes up. I'd appreciate being able to replicate the features of the extant globally-scaleable existing system into something that would keep my needs serviced. Cost-wise, the author does not seem to be demanding something for nothing, or on-going actions from someone else.