3 ms·

I don't know that I agree. I think most people don't care about decentralization but they do care about the effects it brings. Email is a great example where m

I don't know that I agree. I think most people don't care about decentralization but they do care about the effects it brings. Email is a great example where most people wouldn't be interested in a version of email that only let's you email other @gmail.com users. Having a email address that can contact anyone, a phone number that can ring any other phone number etc instead of being locked into a single corporation network is a clear value add that people care about. The main issue from my perspective is that we only have a select few large tech companies that operate as monopolies so are effectively able to block out new decentralized protocols from coming to be. RCS messaging is a great example which I think most people would use over alternatives like WhatsApp and Imessage except that apple refusing to support it locks a huge fraction of the market out and stops widespread adoption being possible. I don't think it's a question of preference, or people being uninterested. It's just a boring and repeated story of corporate monopolies intentionally reducing consumer choice.

endisneigh 3y ago
> I don't think it's a question of preference, or people being uninterested. It's just a boring and repeated story of corporate monopolies intentionally reducing consumer choice. not really. nothing at all is stopping one from starting a new social network that's federated. the issue is users have no reason to move. it's more a question of incentives, and there's basically none to use something that you're not already using unless it's better, heavily advertised or you're simply paid to.
slg 3y ago
>Email is a great example where most people wouldn't be interested in a version of email that only let's you email other @gmail.com users. Having a email address that can contact anyone, a phone number that can ring any other phone number etc instead of being locked into a single corporation network is a clear value add that people care about. That is only because those technologies predate those companies. Normal people don't care that you can't DM a Reddit user on Twitter or that your Instagram posts don't automatically show up on your Facebook page. People are generally fine with centralized corporate platforms as long as it isn't a restriction of a previously free technology and the network effect has done its thing to attract enough people to the platform.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Surely, normal people get exhausted and burned out with how many accounts they need to create on all the platforms, just to stay in touch with everyone in their circle of friends. It was already crazy for me in the 90s days of Instant Messaging, and pidgin was a Godsend to consolidate all those accounts and friends-list into one interface. Surely normal people hate on the sheer volume of apps they need to install on a phone with limited storage. I know a few people who are on exactly one platform, and don't mind it, but most everyone seems to need tendrils all over the place to keep up with a normal Internet social life.
  - irrational 3y ago
    > normal Internet social life I guess I'm abnormal? They only way I contact any friends/family is text message or email. I've never used Facebook, Instagram, or whatever other platforms people use to "keep up with a normal Internet social life". Yet, I have a plethora of friends and don't feel like I have any problem keeping up with family. Maybe people don't really need these platforms.
    - jraph 3y ago
      Yes you are. In the sense that you deviate from the norm. Which is fine, really. I would hope so anyway.
  - jacooper 3y ago
    The result of that is people stick to a know list of apps, and the chance of new apps breaking in is almost impossible. Its why WhatsApp wasn't replaced by the mirad of chat apps that offer a better experience and better features.
  - bombela 3y ago
    Pidgin was great. Now I have all those different (web or not) applications, that never support all my devices. Most application steal a crazy amount of data, consumes bandwidth as if free on the way, while assuming they are alone and can consume all the resources of the computer they are running on. And they all have different UI (dark) patterns, and bugs and this and that. </rant>
grumpymouse 3y ago
I think things like being able to contact anyone are important to people, but decentralisation doesn't necessarily provide that (e.g. if I sign up on a Mastodon instance will I be able to see the messages of everyone on every Mastodon instance, and will they be able to see mine? Will I even know if somebody I care about can see my messages or not?) I think decentralisation is not a selling point to most people. It's an implementation detail that they're happy to go along with but it's a negative if it make the experience worse, makes everything more complicated, if they can't talk to the people they know IRL, etc.
RadiozRadioz 3y ago
I agree, but to nitpick one thing: RCS isn't properly decentralized. It's controlled by carriers in the GSMA and, with the current way the infrastructure has been deployed, Google. Interoperable on the app level, yes, but not a poster child for decentralization.
mananaysiempre 3y ago
> [M]ost people don't care about decentralization but they do care about the effects it brings. I’ve tried pointing those out as bluntly as possible as an experiment. As in “well, surprise, locked-in crap with impenetrable failure modes locks you in and is impenetrable when it fails, you signed up for that”. People didn’t appreciate it, as I expected, but they did seem to recognize the truth of it. That is, the response was along the lines of being forced to use the thing to communicate with some person or institution, not of liking it or thinking it’s not at fault. I don’t know how one would use this to organize an IM revolt (Riot? sorry), but there does seem to be at least some fuel for it even among people who are not outright IT professionals. > RCS messaging is a great example which I think most people would use over alternatives like WhatsApp and iMessage [...]. RCS might make a slight amount of sense in a culture that still uses SMS / texts in non-negligible amounts, but that’s basically North America and Japan AFAIU? And I prefer that territory shrink, not grow, as I’m very much not thrilled by the idea of handing back over detailed control over IM—even just billing, not content—to phone carriers. Whatever the country, they have extensive history proving they can and will screw you for decades unless you can leave, and it will take everybody leaving for them to stop.

endisneigh 3y ago

> I don't think it's a question of preference, or people being uninterested. It's just a boring and repeated story of corporate monopolies intentionally reducing consumer choice. not really. nothing at all is stopping one from starting a new social network that's federated. the issue is users have no reason to move. it's more a question of incentives, and there's basically none to use something that you're not already using unless it's better, heavily advertised or you're simply paid to.

slg 3y ago

>Email is a great example where most people wouldn't be interested in a version of email that only let's you email other @gmail.com users. Having a email address that can contact anyone, a phone number that can ring any other phone number etc instead of being locked into a single corporation network is a clear value add that people care about. That is only because those technologies predate those companies. Normal people don't care that you can't DM a Reddit user on Twitter or that your Instagram posts don't automatically show up on your Facebook page. People are generally fine with centralized corporate platforms as long as it isn't a restriction of a previously free technology and the network effect has done its thing to attract enough people to the platform.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Surely, normal people get exhausted and burned out with how many accounts they need to create on all the platforms, just to stay in touch with everyone in their circle of friends. It was already crazy for me in the 90s days of Instant Messaging, and pidgin was a Godsend to consolidate all those accounts and friends-list into one interface. Surely normal people hate on the sheer volume of apps they need to install on a phone with limited storage. I know a few people who are on exactly one platform, and don't mind it, but most everyone seems to need tendrils all over the place to keep up with a normal Internet social life.
- irrational 3y ago
  > normal Internet social life I guess I'm abnormal? They only way I contact any friends/family is text message or email. I've never used Facebook, Instagram, or whatever other platforms people use to "keep up with a normal Internet social life". Yet, I have a plethora of friends and don't feel like I have any problem keeping up with family. Maybe people don't really need these platforms.
  - jraph 3y ago
    Yes you are. In the sense that you deviate from the norm. Which is fine, really. I would hope so anyway.
- jacooper 3y ago
  The result of that is people stick to a know list of apps, and the chance of new apps breaking in is almost impossible. Its why WhatsApp wasn't replaced by the mirad of chat apps that offer a better experience and better features.
- bombela 3y ago
  Pidgin was great. Now I have all those different (web or not) applications, that never support all my devices. Most application steal a crazy amount of data, consumes bandwidth as if free on the way, while assuming they are alone and can consume all the resources of the computer they are running on. And they all have different UI (dark) patterns, and bugs and this and that. </rant>

grumpymouse 3y ago

I think things like being able to contact anyone are important to people, but decentralisation doesn't necessarily provide that (e.g. if I sign up on a Mastodon instance will I be able to see the messages of everyone on every Mastodon instance, and will they be able to see mine? Will I even know if somebody I care about can see my messages or not?) I think decentralisation is not a selling point to most people. It's an implementation detail that they're happy to go along with but it's a negative if it make the experience worse, makes everything more complicated, if they can't talk to the people they know IRL, etc.

RadiozRadioz 3y ago

I agree, but to nitpick one thing: RCS isn't properly decentralized. It's controlled by carriers in the GSMA and, with the current way the infrastructure has been deployed, Google. Interoperable on the app level, yes, but not a poster child for decentralization.

mananaysiempre 3y ago

> [M]ost people don't care about decentralization but they do care about the effects it brings. I’ve tried pointing those out as bluntly as possible as an experiment. As in “well, surprise, locked-in crap with impenetrable failure modes locks you in and is impenetrable when it fails, you signed up for that”. People didn’t appreciate it, as I expected, but they did seem to recognize the truth of it. That is, the response was along the lines of being forced to use the thing to communicate with some person or institution, not of liking it or thinking it’s not at fault. I don’t know how one would use this to organize an IM revolt (Riot? sorry), but there does seem to be at least some fuel for it even among people who are not outright IT professionals. > RCS messaging is a great example which I think most people would use over alternatives like WhatsApp and iMessage [...]. RCS might make a slight amount of sense in a culture that still uses SMS / texts in non-negligible amounts, but that’s basically North America and Japan AFAIU? And I prefer that territory shrink, not grow, as I’m very much not thrilled by the idea of handing back over detailed control over IM—even just billing, not content—to phone carriers. Whatever the country, they have extensive history proving they can and will screw you for decades unless you can leave, and it will take everybody leaving for them to stop.