4 ms·

>> 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.

>> 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.

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.