3 ms·
> They were at pains to explain to users how there are multiple servers and one has to choose a server, which is run by individuals or organisations. And if the
by cbsmith 4y ago
> They were at pains to explain to users how there are multiple servers and one has to choose a server, which is run by individuals or organisations. And if the server goes down then the user has to move to another server. Regular non-tech users really don't want to get into this complexity. Has anyone ever seen TV channels explain with great effort how to use Twitter?
I would point out that the concept is really no different from how ISPs work, and yet the public seems to have wrangled with that one.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago> I would point out that the concept is really no different from how ISPs work, and yet the public seems to have wrangled with that one. Geographic locality helps. At any given location, the choice of ISPs will be severely limited. If my experience in a major European city scales, there will be between one to three ISPs able to service your areas, plus a few more niche/specialized ones. The actual choice is usually made based on ads, or asking a tech-savvy acquaintance for help.
- cbsmith 4y agoSo, you're saying that people can get the concept, but only if there's only two or three choices? I get that choice can be overwhelming, but that generally doesn't change whether people get the concept.
- mr_toad 4y ago> I would point out that the concept is really no different from how ISPs work, and yet the public seems to have wrangled with that one. If someone could figure out a way to provide internet to consumers so that they didn’t have to deal with ISPs/carriers they’d capture a huge market overnight.
- cbsmith 4y agoI don't disagree (though it's hypothetical enough it's hard to reason about). The fact remains that the concept isn't unnavigable to the vast majority of the public.