4 ms·
This isn't really about centralization. It's about federation. And as much as HNers may want it, nobody else does. Let me introduce use to the Plain Old Telepho
by jmyeet 4y ago
This isn't really about centralization. It's about federation. And as much as HNers may want it, nobody else does. Let me introduce use to the Plain Old Telephone System ("POTS"). POTS is a federated system. It's true it's also open addressing, which is a factor but not as much as you might think.
People hate POTS. You're identified by a number. It includes a (now meaningless) area code. Portability is a problem. You can switch carriers (although prepaid portability can still be an issue) but it's a process. Also, whatever portability you have disappears when you cross a border.
POTS is filled with spam. Just like email (another federated service). As soon as something is federated it becomes incredibly difficult to police bad actors. If you, as a telephone exchange has too much spam (eg robocall) traffic, you might find yourself blacklisted by large players like Verizon and AT&T. So what do you do? You "launder" such traffic with enough legitimate traffic so as to not trigger any enforcement while charging extra for known offenders. Because that is profit.
A federated system is inherently a game of whack-a-mole with bad actors while being a race to the bottom.
Messaging services like Twitter, FB (Messenger) and WhatsApp all grew and continue to exist because of centralization while federated alternatives inevitably always die or simply never gain real traction. There are real efficiency issues. For example, when policing offensive material (eg CSAM) is each entity responsible? How is that efficient? They might have to do because given material may never leave a given node.
The question you should always ask is: what problem does this solve for the user that they care about?
- int_19h 4y agoGiven that what is and isn't legal varies a lot between countries, how anything but federation can be a sensible approach for a truly global Net?
- OctopusLupid 4y ago> There are real efficiency issues. For example, when policing offensive material (eg CSAM) is each entity responsible? How is that efficient? Related: https://berk.es/2022/11/08/fediverse-inefficiencies/ https://berk.es/2022/11/08/fediverse-inefficiencies/
- dack 4y agoI think some users liked Twitter exactly the way it was, so yeah, there was no need to change anything. Other users were literally blacklisted, or blocked from search, or banned. Or they wanted to follow such people and couldn't. Yes, some of them were actual trolls or spammers, but many were just ideologically misaligned with Twitter the company (and/or their advertisers). I think the problem to solve is how can we allow people to communicate AND DISCOVER other people's opinions without a particular company/organization making that decision for them. Websites aren't good enough because they aren't very discoverable and don't have a robust discussion mechanism. I don't even think Mastodon allows this because admins seem pretty opinionated and end up cutting out chunks of the fediverse without the users' consent. I'm not sure what the solution is but that is a real problem and it does seem necessary to "decentralize" to some extent as every group will always have conflicting opinions with other groups
- mattl 4y agoWhy is an area code meaningless?
- twiddling 4y agofunctionally it has become. Many people move and don't switch to a local number they just bring their old one along. Now the area code isn't really indicative of where a person lives just where they got their first phone.
- mattl 4y agoFor a cellphone I think that’s more true. I don’t know anyone with a landline number that isn’t roughly where the phone is physically located.