4 ms·

> Everything you're saying resonates, though I'm in that "10 years" zone, ahead of you, in regards to parenting. > I'm here to talk about the problems of adole

> Everything you're saying resonates, though I'm in that "10 years" zone, ahead of you, in regards to parenting. > I'm here to talk about the problems of adolescent girls in this era, if you ever want to reach out. A horrible reality I've lived as a parent. This is heartbreaking and I'd love to talk... Permission to reach out via email? > I'm not convinced that [peer to peer] is as important as it is to refocus on control/ownership, intimacy, and moderation? I believe these are synonymous. > control/ownership When you invert control/ownership, the user controls their data. The application is delegated access to it. This is a peer-to-peer data structure. Instead of generating the data on an ASP's server, the user generates their data and stores it in a data structure they have control over. They can _delegate_ generation of data to an ASP style app, but ultimately the app is taking actions _on their behalf_ which the user owns. They can pull that data down to their laptop, push it up to a peer-to-peer enabled NAS (purchased from the big box store) that they plugged into their router, etc. The app can't revoke access to their data if they've backed it up. The app can refuse to continue mirroring it or modifying it, but it can't _lock them out_. It's the user's data. That data is sharable and discoverable without the app's permission. The app can participate in sharing and discovering the data, but it can't _block_ the user from interacting with other users on the web. The user isn't _forced_ to interact with other users either. They are in full control of who they associate with. Right now we are solving this with a hash-tree. Every time a user takes an action ("creates a post", "uploads a picture", etc.) it's added to their hash tree. When you add a new device, the tree "branches" and you get two branches, one for each key to sign and add next blocks. This solves concurrent writes much like a CRDT. That hash-tree is an append-only database. Anything you want to record goes into the database. The nodes in the tree do not store content, only a _reference_ to the content. This keeps the tree very small (1M nodes can fit in less than a GB of storage). You can backup the entire tree without backing up all of the content. And you can "delete" large files without having to rewrite the tree. The tree itself isn't the user's identity though. That's fiat. If a key is compromised, users can flag content and say "hey, this isn't Alice, Alice wouldn't send me a crypto scam." Users can take two trees and "merge" them under the same identity (these are both Alice, but Alice lost her login and got locked out of her account, so has a new tree). This can be done without appealing to some application owner to "permit" you to fix Alice's social identity from your perspective on the web. Then we use a capability system to delegate rights to keys added to the tree. So you can add an app (like iCloud) to your tree, and that app can now take actions within the scope of the capability it was granted. > intimacy, and moderation Intimacy, to me, means letting users decide how they want to model their social interactions. Who they pull in content from, how that content gets aggregated and displayed, etc. Moderation, to me, means deciding what the user gets to see. Those decisions are for communities, not for some remote disinterested platform operator. You solve intimacy and moderation by allowing communities to form and moderate themselves.

Timshel 3y ago
>> I'm not convinced that [peer to peer] is as important as it is to refocus on control/ownership, intimacy, and moderation? >I believe these are synonymous. Not op, but I don't believe it is and while I would prefer more p2p in so many case onboarding issues brake it. My hope is more on federation now but still you see so many peoples complains on how Mastodon is not as simple as Twitter ... But good luck in your projects :).
- r3trohack3r 3y ago
  > My hope is more on federation Personally I see federation as N copies of the centralization problem. I don't think it foundationally solves any of the problems that resulted in centralization of the web, or the incentives that lead to social networking evolving into social media. It just creates N copies of them. They are still ASPs, there are just N instances of them now. Federation still segregates users into the "administrator class" and the "user class" for web technology. And the administrator class has a substantial power imbalance over the user class. Users aren't platforming themselves on a federated system. System administrators retain "root access" and users are second class. Users have little to no way of operating independently of the administrator class, unless they are technically savy enough to administer their own node. And administrators still need to pay the bills (though many federated servers operate on altruism). It's also rather nonsensical to me. Most of the arguments that promote Application Service Providers can be accomplished with peer-to-peer software. The software can be remotely administrated, updated, and managed. You can deliver a peer-to-peer experience via a browser tab, an app store, or a binary. Those can still update the same way an ASP does today. The user's data can be backed up and made highly available (though that becomes less important, because a user's social group is doing that too!). Many of the arguments for someone to administer a server on behalf of a user are still valid in p2p, but the server becomes a p2p node - not a root administrator over the user's account. Peer-to-Peer doesn't mean users have to build and operate everything. It just means the data they generate is theirs and their social connections are theirs. They can directly dial and communicate with the devices in their social group without needing to go through a centrally managed server. The federated incentive model can still incentivize administrators to build and maintain systems for peer-to-peer networks without requiring a "first class" and "second class" digital citizen class structure baked into the fabric of the internet protocols.

Timshel 3y ago

>> I'm not convinced that [peer to peer] is as important as it is to refocus on control/ownership, intimacy, and moderation? >I believe these are synonymous. Not op, but I don't believe it is and while I would prefer more p2p in so many case onboarding issues brake it. My hope is more on federation now but still you see so many peoples complains on how Mastodon is not as simple as Twitter ... But good luck in your projects :).

r3trohack3r 3y ago
> My hope is more on federation Personally I see federation as N copies of the centralization problem. I don't think it foundationally solves any of the problems that resulted in centralization of the web, or the incentives that lead to social networking evolving into social media. It just creates N copies of them. They are still ASPs, there are just N instances of them now. Federation still segregates users into the "administrator class" and the "user class" for web technology. And the administrator class has a substantial power imbalance over the user class. Users aren't platforming themselves on a federated system. System administrators retain "root access" and users are second class. Users have little to no way of operating independently of the administrator class, unless they are technically savy enough to administer their own node. And administrators still need to pay the bills (though many federated servers operate on altruism). It's also rather nonsensical to me. Most of the arguments that promote Application Service Providers can be accomplished with peer-to-peer software. The software can be remotely administrated, updated, and managed. You can deliver a peer-to-peer experience via a browser tab, an app store, or a binary. Those can still update the same way an ASP does today. The user's data can be backed up and made highly available (though that becomes less important, because a user's social group is doing that too!). Many of the arguments for someone to administer a server on behalf of a user are still valid in p2p, but the server becomes a p2p node - not a root administrator over the user's account. Peer-to-Peer doesn't mean users have to build and operate everything. It just means the data they generate is theirs and their social connections are theirs. They can directly dial and communicate with the devices in their social group without needing to go through a centrally managed server. The federated incentive model can still incentivize administrators to build and maintain systems for peer-to-peer networks without requiring a "first class" and "second class" digital citizen class structure baked into the fabric of the internet protocols.