4 ms·

The web as designed by Tim Berners-Lee was a decentralized system where you could host a website and others could see it. Google came along and made finding th

The web as designed by Tim Berners-Lee was a decentralized system where you could host a website and others could see it. Google came along and made finding these websites much more convenient and accessible. Along the way Microsoft IE began using monopoly advantage to make the web in Microsoft’s image. It was a clunky unstandardized mess for many years as only Microsoft could officially push a standard. You could build for Netscape/Firefox, but you would be breaking 90% of your users due to undocumented and tailored code. Now Google has the market share. The standards are much more aligned amongst the major players, and it would be a stretch to call it a monopoly. That’s the goal. Google unofficially pushes the new browsers standards towards Google’s image, just as Microsoft had before. Just look at Chrome extensions for an example. It’s not a coincidence ad blockers are becoming weakling in the name of “security”. Apple has their entrenched user base, solidifying with every iOS app unavailable to other ecosystems. Compound the issue when people have paid real money for useful apps that they don’t wish to sink the cost for. It’s better than before, but companies will never have your best interests at heart. Profit is incentivized first, then product (including you). A decentralized web is possible, we have the technology. There is no reason a static site server couldn’t be implemented with a proxy hiding feature, even using IPFS potentially. Large plates can still cache and serve data to get paid, but your data doesn’t have to be centralized. Moreover, serving up a web server from your local machine could be as easy as opening a custom pinned tabbed and sharing it out. CRDTs and homomorophic tech open worlds of possibility with secure p2p applications at scale. But this is not what a cloud provider wants. It is not the direction we are heading. We are trained to be paranoid (rightful so unfortunately), and cloud providers tout themselves as the panacea. In some ways they are, but at what cost? We no longer trust the user to have a direct connection. All of your services should be on the cloud if you’re “enterprise” enough, and you’ll pay for it accordingly. What I want to see: Governments recognize that the internet is a public utility at this point, and reduce the roadblocks to hosting your own data. Allow all GUA IPv6 addresses to be static if requested. Don’t allow carriers to give special preference to business accounts vs personal for static assignment. There is no technical reason for this if a customer requests it. We’re not running out of IPv6 addresses. This fixes the STUN/TURN debacle created by NAT, and opens up the field for new possibilities. It also allows for real decentralized competition with cloud providers. It used to be that I got excited about the random blog posts I could find. Simple HTML sites from interesting people, which I mostly get on Hacker News now. Search engines filled with ads and SEO/AI garbage only exist because of the profit structure and centralized control. With ID verification a certainty due to AI advances, we’re going to be even more locked into these monopolistic systems. We need competition, and as long as they hold the search screen, we’re only going to move towards higher profits for them. Yet something tells me our governments have something to do with it. Data collection isn’t just profitable, it’s potent.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thomastjeffery 3y ago
There is one reason left: copyright. A true decentralized content sharing platform cannot prevent copyright infringement. That's the guarantee that we have built our entire society around. Copyright isn't even about artists making money anymore. It's the tool we use to litigate fraud. It's the tool we use to demand privacy. It's the foundation for content-moderation. If we want a decentralized web, we need to leave copyright out of it. The greatest challenge for that is moderation. I advocate that we replace moderation with curation.
- rustcleaner 3y ago
  Best bet is to build the network to be resistant to government, police, and (underlying layers 2/3) network censorship. You work to make protocols which make individuals and small groups as equally powerful as large groups when it comes to meeting physical/biological survival needs. You promote personal sovereignty even if it means some random nut can kill a bunch of randos as a negative six-sigma result. Instead of building systems which try to subsume individual mental sovereignty into the group mind (all is one, all is god), promote technologies which enable minds to grow in capabilities and independence (you too can grow into a god). Governments are examples of the former. It is better the government or any other powerful group not be able to handcuff the guy you don't like today, lest they come to handcuff you tomorrow. Everyday you give up your sovereignty like a currency for some form of benefit (try manufacturing methamphetamine while skipping property taxes, you are not sovereign): always evaluate if you are still getting a good deal, and build technologies which make it harder (NOT EASIER) to both give up or take away that sovereignty. This is almost a religious thing. (Caveat: I am big-A Atheist.)
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    Such networks already exist. There's a reason most people won't use them: moderation. Most people don't want to spend their time on 4chan. If you want interesting content, then you want users, which means you want moderation. The problem with moderation is that it's a hierarchy. That's exactly what a decentralized network exists to avoid. We need a decentralization-compatible moderation alternative. I think reframing top-down moderation as bottom-up curation could work.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

thomastjeffery 3y ago

There is one reason left: copyright. A true decentralized content sharing platform cannot prevent copyright infringement. That's the guarantee that we have built our entire society around. Copyright isn't even about artists making money anymore. It's the tool we use to litigate fraud. It's the tool we use to demand privacy. It's the foundation for content-moderation. If we want a decentralized web, we need to leave copyright out of it. The greatest challenge for that is moderation. I advocate that we replace moderation with curation.

rustcleaner 3y ago
Best bet is to build the network to be resistant to government, police, and (underlying layers 2/3) network censorship. You work to make protocols which make individuals and small groups as equally powerful as large groups when it comes to meeting physical/biological survival needs. You promote personal sovereignty even if it means some random nut can kill a bunch of randos as a negative six-sigma result. Instead of building systems which try to subsume individual mental sovereignty into the group mind (all is one, all is god), promote technologies which enable minds to grow in capabilities and independence (you too can grow into a god). Governments are examples of the former. It is better the government or any other powerful group not be able to handcuff the guy you don't like today, lest they come to handcuff you tomorrow. Everyday you give up your sovereignty like a currency for some form of benefit (try manufacturing methamphetamine while skipping property taxes, you are not sovereign): always evaluate if you are still getting a good deal, and build technologies which make it harder (NOT EASIER) to both give up or take away that sovereignty. This is almost a religious thing. (Caveat: I am big-A Atheist.)
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  Such networks already exist. There's a reason most people won't use them: moderation. Most people don't want to spend their time on 4chan. If you want interesting content, then you want users, which means you want moderation. The problem with moderation is that it's a hierarchy. That's exactly what a decentralized network exists to avoid. We need a decentralization-compatible moderation alternative. I think reframing top-down moderation as bottom-up curation could work.