4 ms·

Why is this obsession with decentralized? I don’t see the benefits of it at all. A central server is better if they have a good moderation plan built in. This w

Why is this obsession with decentralized? I don’t see the benefits of it at all. A central server is better if they have a good moderation plan built in. This whole decentralized idea is to wash their hands off moderation and not take a blame for the hellhole it will become. From a pure functional point of view, how can a decentralized network provide any performance guarantee? What am I missing?

swayvil 4y ago
A central authority that has total control over the conversation is considered by many to be a bad thing. Some think that a more democratic approach is preferable.
rchaud 4y ago
> How can a decentralized network provide any performance guarantee? Why can't it just be like message boards like Xenforo and PHPbb? There are numerous sports-related boards created 10+ years ago on that old tech that are still handling thousands of users concurrently. They're also well moderated too; that's something that becomes impossible if you are trying to manage hundreds of thousands of users.
- chrisandchris 4y ago
  Yup, missing those days where sharing consistet of more than 160 characters, only pictures or videos, or then text sprinkled with useless GIFs. Gotta go back to those 2k-years where the phpBB-era was in it's high.
turnsout 4y ago
> a good moderation plan ^ This is the reason decentralized is better for everyone, including Meta. At a certain scale, content moderation goes from "hard" to "actually impossible." With enough users, you will eventually have an Kurdish knitting group that meets in Turkey, who uses ethnic slurs ironically as a commentary on the government's treatment of immigrants, and you'll have to unravel the whole thing when someone complains. And the whole conversation is happening in Kurdish.
- m3kw9 4y ago
  There is ideal and there is practical, most people will not just switch from twitter because it allows someone to by pass govt. It will be difficult if no content is there.
  - turnsout 4y ago
    People will follow people—we've already seen that with the tech community and Mastodon. Within niches like the iOS dev community, virtually everyone has jumped from Twitter to Mastodon. If a good centralized alternative comes along, other communities may jump to that. But so far, there are no centralized contenders on the Twitter front.
mariusor 4y ago
Decentralized implies smaller scale than centralized. Smaller scale means less burden on moderation. Smaller scale means less resources required. Smaller scale means a better community.
baby 4y ago
> Why is this obsession with decentralized? I don’t see the benefits of it at all To me this is the angle: we want to be available in China, this is the way to be available in China.
commandlinefan 4y ago
> A central server is better if they have a good moderation plan built in If that's true, then the internet itself was (and continues to be) a mistake.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I guess, if you think of the internet as being just a gigantic message board or something.
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
  You're talking about the web, which could indeed use some revision. The Internet is just fine.
onychomys 4y ago
Weirdo billionaires can't buy a decentralized network.
olah_1 4y ago
> Why is this obsession with decentralized? One reason could be that decentralization reduces the liability on the company. They could save huge costs in letting users self-moderate and in not being responsible for illegal content.
__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
It depends how decentralized. If they go so far as to be partition tolerant then you get a lot of resiliency wins. i.e. if a solar flare knocks out anything attached to a long enough cable to induce circuit-damaging current, you can still gossip messages between colocated devices, some of which might be en route to someplace distant. Secure Scuttlebutt Protocol works in this mode for example. In such a scenario, being able to piggyback messages on travellers you don't know (even if it takes a few days to propagate) could be lifesaving. There's also something to be said re: censorship. If you can facilitate comms between otherwise firewalled groups of people by simply sneaking a SD card across the border from time to time, that's right in line with Meta's mission statement. I doubt that Meta is going to make it this decentralized. Whatever they build is going to be decentralized™. But it would be pretty cool to see this design space explored.
themagician 4y ago
"Why is this obsession with decentralized?" From a business perspective: absolution from liability. If it's decentralized then you can conveniently say you can't control it and you can't shut it down. All you can do is make money from it.
rakoo 4y ago
> A central server is better if they have a good moderation plan built in. "An authoritarian regime is better if they have a good dictator and the proper watchdogs"
- Spivak 4y ago
  Call it what you want but yes, having strong empowered opinionated leadership has proven over and over to make products people prefer. This site is one of them. It’s why freedom as in anarchy social media sites keep becoming far right nazi cesspools. Nobody who isn’t one of them wants to be around them. I don’t have to worry all that much on here because when the insane green accounts come around replying to me with death threats they’re immediately deleted.
  - rakoo 4y ago
    I absolutely disagree. Far-right forums also has a strong empowered leadership and it doesn't make them pleasant for you or I to go. It's also a product some people prefer, just not us. Absence of hierarchy and ruler is also the norm in Usenet, and the community as put processes for everyone to manage lunatics without the need of a central authority. "Freedom", or rather control, allows a community to choose for themselves. I don't agree with everything here, for example, and I don't have the power to change things, but that's alright because I can live with that. On the other hand I have my own Fediverse instance which means I can choose what I see and what I don't see. I still believe it's important.

swayvil 4y ago

A central authority that has total control over the conversation is considered by many to be a bad thing. Some think that a more democratic approach is preferable.

rchaud 4y ago

> How can a decentralized network provide any performance guarantee? Why can't it just be like message boards like Xenforo and PHPbb? There are numerous sports-related boards created 10+ years ago on that old tech that are still handling thousands of users concurrently. They're also well moderated too; that's something that becomes impossible if you are trying to manage hundreds of thousands of users.

chrisandchris 4y ago
Yup, missing those days where sharing consistet of more than 160 characters, only pictures or videos, or then text sprinkled with useless GIFs. Gotta go back to those 2k-years where the phpBB-era was in it's high.

turnsout 4y ago

> a good moderation plan ^ This is the reason decentralized is better for everyone, including Meta. At a certain scale, content moderation goes from "hard" to "actually impossible." With enough users, you will eventually have an Kurdish knitting group that meets in Turkey, who uses ethnic slurs ironically as a commentary on the government's treatment of immigrants, and you'll have to unravel the whole thing when someone complains. And the whole conversation is happening in Kurdish.

m3kw9 4y ago
There is ideal and there is practical, most people will not just switch from twitter because it allows someone to by pass govt. It will be difficult if no content is there.
- turnsout 4y ago
  People will follow people—we've already seen that with the tech community and Mastodon. Within niches like the iOS dev community, virtually everyone has jumped from Twitter to Mastodon. If a good centralized alternative comes along, other communities may jump to that. But so far, there are no centralized contenders on the Twitter front.

mariusor 4y ago

Decentralized implies smaller scale than centralized. Smaller scale means less burden on moderation. Smaller scale means less resources required. Smaller scale means a better community.

baby 4y ago

> Why is this obsession with decentralized? I don’t see the benefits of it at all To me this is the angle: we want to be available in China, this is the way to be available in China.

commandlinefan 4y ago

> A central server is better if they have a good moderation plan built in If that's true, then the internet itself was (and continues to be) a mistake.

JohnFen 4y ago
I guess, if you think of the internet as being just a gigantic message board or something.
__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
You're talking about the web, which could indeed use some revision. The Internet is just fine.

onychomys 4y ago

Weirdo billionaires can't buy a decentralized network.

olah_1 4y ago

> Why is this obsession with decentralized? One reason could be that decentralization reduces the liability on the company. They could save huge costs in letting users self-moderate and in not being responsible for illegal content.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago

It depends how decentralized. If they go so far as to be partition tolerant then you get a lot of resiliency wins. i.e. if a solar flare knocks out anything attached to a long enough cable to induce circuit-damaging current, you can still gossip messages between colocated devices, some of which might be en route to someplace distant. Secure Scuttlebutt Protocol works in this mode for example. In such a scenario, being able to piggyback messages on travellers you don't know (even if it takes a few days to propagate) could be lifesaving. There's also something to be said re: censorship. If you can facilitate comms between otherwise firewalled groups of people by simply sneaking a SD card across the border from time to time, that's right in line with Meta's mission statement. I doubt that Meta is going to make it this decentralized. Whatever they build is going to be decentralized™. But it would be pretty cool to see this design space explored.

themagician 4y ago

"Why is this obsession with decentralized?" From a business perspective: absolution from liability. If it's decentralized then you can conveniently say you can't control it and you can't shut it down. All you can do is make money from it.

rakoo 4y ago

> A central server is better if they have a good moderation plan built in. "An authoritarian regime is better if they have a good dictator and the proper watchdogs"

Spivak 4y ago
Call it what you want but yes, having strong empowered opinionated leadership has proven over and over to make products people prefer. This site is one of them. It’s why freedom as in anarchy social media sites keep becoming far right nazi cesspools. Nobody who isn’t one of them wants to be around them. I don’t have to worry all that much on here because when the insane green accounts come around replying to me with death threats they’re immediately deleted.
- rakoo 4y ago
  I absolutely disagree. Far-right forums also has a strong empowered leadership and it doesn't make them pleasant for you or I to go. It's also a product some people prefer, just not us. Absence of hierarchy and ruler is also the norm in Usenet, and the community as put processes for everyone to manage lunatics without the need of a central authority. "Freedom", or rather control, allows a community to choose for themselves. I don't agree with everything here, for example, and I don't have the power to change things, but that's alright because I can live with that. On the other hand I have my own Fediverse instance which means I can choose what I see and what I don't see. I still believe it's important.