3 ms·
(1) That's Mozilla Foundation, which doesn't produce a browser in the first place. And (2) that article is not even anti-decentralization. It's just calling out
by sfink 4y ago
(1) That's Mozilla Foundation, which doesn't produce a browser in the first place. And (2) that article is not even anti-decentralization. It's just calling out that the same old stuff is happening in that world too, and the same tools that (poorly) combat that stuff won't work in the decentralized world. The only value judgement is against emergent effects like radicalization; nothing against decentralization itself.
What's the problem again?
- guywithahat 4y ago> That's Mozilla Foundation, which doesn't produce a browser in the first place And I suppose Meta doesn't produce a social network? Also the fundamental analysis of the article is that we need to have centralized control over decentralized networks (which they refer to as networks of trust and abuse audits), making the decentralized part inept. If you can no longer run a decentralized service without getting permission from a centralized authority, it's not really a decentralized service