4 ms·

> what kind of web do you think could be built by and for those who don't trust FAANG? The web? FAANG is not the web, it's just some companies putting apps on

> what kind of web do you think could be built by and for those who don't trust FAANG? The web? FAANG is not the web, it's just some companies putting apps on the web

rglullis 4y ago
No. This web is controlled by these "some companies". They monopolize social media, e-commerce, games, telecommunication platforms. Billions of people go by assuming that Facebook is the internet. Go ahead and try to live on the internet without being forced to interact with any of FAANG services. It's impossible even for me, who tries to keep as strict of a "digital hygiene" as possible and use open source and open standards as much as possible. If you think that we can not improve on the web that we have today, either your standards are way too low or you already got so used to be manipulated by Big Tech that you can't even imagine how much better and freer life could be without it.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  remind me which part of faang is involved in this website again
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Is "this website" all of the web? Good God, can we please stop with the cheap rhetoric and at least try to discuss things in a productive way?
    - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
      > Is "this website" all of the web? Do I actually have to answer this? . > Good God, can we please stop with the cheap rhetoric and at least try to discuss things in a productive way? I didn't engage in any rhetoric. The question I asked you remains unanswered, and I was in fact being productive. Sorry you got stuck. Better luck next time I guess
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > They monopolize social media, e-commerce, games, telecommunication platforms. Billions of people go by assuming that Facebook is the internet. how exactly web3 is supposed to fix that? > or you already got so used to be manipulated by Big Tech assuming without knowing is the worst form of arrogance. but even if that was true, I don't believe that the guy in the small village here in Italy that makes olive oil and sell it on Amazon to markets he could never even imagine existed is going to go decentralized and trustless just because Amazon is virtually a monopoly. FAANG provided opportunities that have much more value for people than idealism (that doesn't even work!)
  - rglullis 4y ago
    > how exactly web3 is supposed to fix that? By providing a set of tools that allow (but not require) disintermediation. > FAANG provided opportunities Sure. It also blocked them. It also has created massive costs to people. It has also created Surveillance Capitalism. It employs thousands of people whose sole job is dedicated to keep its users addicted. It is creating a society of people who can "connect" with anyone on the other side of the world, but who get anxiety attacks if they have to talk with their own neighbor next door. It is destroying all chance of civil discourse, making groups increasingly polarized and isolated. > that have much more value for people than idealism To some people. Good for them. When it works, it is great. The question is: what about those people who don't get to enjoy these benefits? And can we get to provide this value without having all this collateral damage? > (that doesn't even work!) It works for some cases, and it works for some people. There is no technology in human history that was "born" perfectly ready for mass-usage. And there shouldn't be. I'm not advocating here that we should all be dropping the systems and institutions that work, just to adopt something for the sake of "new tech". What I am saying is that there are whole lots of groups who are not being served by the current systems and institutions, and that we can do more than collectively shrug our shoulders and/or attack those who are attempting to create a solution.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > By providing a set of tools that allow (but not require) disintermediation. How exactly is it gonna make people do the switch from Google search, Google maps, WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, Netflix, iPhones/MacBooks etc.? > The question is: what about those people who don't get to enjoy these benefits? And can we get to provide this value without having all this collateral damage? Make your own website, communicate via e-mail, host your own mail server, etc. FAANG is not "the web" and "the web" is not the Internet. > It works for some cases, and it works for some people I don't think it actually works, or to put it in other words, it works like casinos in Las Vegas work. But that they improve society it's highly questionable IMO.
- eftychis 4y ago
  To add to your comment. It is more fundamental. Modern protocols and standards -- from WebAssembly to TLS 1.3, to QUIC are FAANG controlled, we like it or not. There was a post recently on hackernews about forcing client support of SNI being problematic according to some people. So the effect of FAANG is far more fundamental; beyond ads and content that is.

> what kind of web do you think could be built by and for those who don't trust FAANG? The web? FAANG is not the web, it's just some companies putting apps on the web

rglullis 4y ago

No. This web is controlled by these "some companies". They monopolize social media, e-commerce, games, telecommunication platforms. Billions of people go by assuming that Facebook is the internet. Go ahead and try to live on the internet without being forced to interact with any of FAANG services. It's impossible even for me, who tries to keep as strict of a "digital hygiene" as possible and use open source and open standards as much as possible. If you think that we can not improve on the web that we have today, either your standards are way too low or you already got so used to be manipulated by Big Tech that you can't even imagine how much better and freer life could be without it.

JohnHaugeland 4y ago
remind me which part of faang is involved in this website again
- rglullis 4y ago
  Is "this website" all of the web? Good God, can we please stop with the cheap rhetoric and at least try to discuss things in a productive way?
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    > Is "this website" all of the web? Do I actually have to answer this? . > Good God, can we please stop with the cheap rhetoric and at least try to discuss things in a productive way? I didn't engage in any rhetoric. The question I asked you remains unanswered, and I was in fact being productive. Sorry you got stuck. Better luck next time I guess
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> They monopolize social media, e-commerce, games, telecommunication platforms. Billions of people go by assuming that Facebook is the internet. how exactly web3 is supposed to fix that? > or you already got so used to be manipulated by Big Tech assuming without knowing is the worst form of arrogance. but even if that was true, I don't believe that the guy in the small village here in Italy that makes olive oil and sell it on Amazon to markets he could never even imagine existed is going to go decentralized and trustless just because Amazon is virtually a monopoly. FAANG provided opportunities that have much more value for people than idealism (that doesn't even work!)
- rglullis 4y ago
  > how exactly web3 is supposed to fix that? By providing a set of tools that allow (but not require) disintermediation. > FAANG provided opportunities Sure. It also blocked them. It also has created massive costs to people. It has also created Surveillance Capitalism. It employs thousands of people whose sole job is dedicated to keep its users addicted. It is creating a society of people who can "connect" with anyone on the other side of the world, but who get anxiety attacks if they have to talk with their own neighbor next door. It is destroying all chance of civil discourse, making groups increasingly polarized and isolated. > that have much more value for people than idealism To some people. Good for them. When it works, it is great. The question is: what about those people who don't get to enjoy these benefits? And can we get to provide this value without having all this collateral damage? > (that doesn't even work!) It works for some cases, and it works for some people. There is no technology in human history that was "born" perfectly ready for mass-usage. And there shouldn't be. I'm not advocating here that we should all be dropping the systems and institutions that work, just to adopt something for the sake of "new tech". What I am saying is that there are whole lots of groups who are not being served by the current systems and institutions, and that we can do more than collectively shrug our shoulders and/or attack those who are attempting to create a solution.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > By providing a set of tools that allow (but not require) disintermediation. How exactly is it gonna make people do the switch from Google search, Google maps, WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, Netflix, iPhones/MacBooks etc.? > The question is: what about those people who don't get to enjoy these benefits? And can we get to provide this value without having all this collateral damage? Make your own website, communicate via e-mail, host your own mail server, etc. FAANG is not "the web" and "the web" is not the Internet. > It works for some cases, and it works for some people I don't think it actually works, or to put it in other words, it works like casinos in Las Vegas work. But that they improve society it's highly questionable IMO.
eftychis 4y ago
To add to your comment. It is more fundamental. Modern protocols and standards -- from WebAssembly to TLS 1.3, to QUIC are FAANG controlled, we like it or not. There was a post recently on hackernews about forcing client support of SNI being problematic according to some people. So the effect of FAANG is far more fundamental; beyond ads and content that is.