4 ms·

There is no relation between decentralisation and advertisment. Any node can serve you ads. Also, in a decentralised network, it may be even harder to keep con

There is no relation between decentralisation and advertisment. Any node can serve you ads. Also, in a decentralised network, it may be even harder to keep control over data. Example: It is easier to hold Google accountable for data in their servers than users of BitTorrent for their data.

Mahn 12y ago
> There is no relation between decentralisation and advertisment. Any node can serve you ads. But there's no point in showing ads in a decentralized network since the proceeds would belong to no one. Unless someone controls the client application/interface, but then it's not entirely decentralized.
- philwelch 12y ago
  The proceeds would belong to the owner of the local node you connect to.
  - idlewords 12y ago
    Dammit Chad, stop serving ads or I swear I will slash your tires
- einrealist 12y ago
  Of course there is. If you need to pay for a node, showing ads may be the only way to finance it. And I also can have a node just for showing ads to a network. Imagine Facebook as the network and the members as peers. There are many peers who just advertise something.
  - prawn 12y ago
    Could local businesses act as sponsored nodes somehow?
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> There is no relation between decentralisation and advertisment. Any node can serve you ads. There is a difference between "track you and show you ads" and just "show you ads." A print newspaper can show you ads. > Example: It is easier to hold Google accountable for data in their servers than users of BitTorrent for their data. Not really. If Google or Facebook has your data but your "friends" have access to it, your friends also have your data. They can copy it and keep it indefinitely. Removing the middle man doesn't reduce your own control, it only removes the middle man's control.
- wdewind 12y ago
  Not parent but... > There is a difference between "track you and show you ads" and just "show you ads." A print newspaper can show you ads. And a federation of networks can get together and decide to share what data they have about you with each other. > Not really. If Google or Facebook has your data but your "friends" have access to it, your friends also have your data. They can copy it and keep it indefinitely. Removing the middle man doesn't reduce your own control, it only removes the middle man's control. Could you clarify this? I'm really not sure what you mean, sorry.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > And a federation of networks can get together and decide to share what data they have about you with each other. Federation means competition. You can choose providers you trust and who agree not to do that. Or you can run your own, which in a properly designed system shouldn't require more than some free software, a domain name and a machine to point it at. Which ordinary people might buy off the shelf as an appliance that plugs into your modem. > Could you clarify this? I'm really not sure what you mean, sorry. OK, so right now you have a funny cat video, so you upload it to YouTube and then post the link on Facebook. So Facebook can tell who you've shared the link with and who has clicked on it, YouTube can tell what you've uploaded and who has watched it, and anyone you've shared it with (or, in the absence of authentication, anyone in the world) can download it and save a copy on their hard drive. In the alternative, you upload the funny cat video to some distributed CDN thing like Freenet or BitTorrent, and then your friends get the link in something that resembles an RSS reader that gets its feeds from something that distributes messages how email does. So anyone you've shared the video with can still download it and keep it but there is nobody who has the complete list of everyone you've shared it with and there is no third party middle man who can keep track of everyone who is looking at it. Whoever is doing the uploading can still tell who is downloading but presumably these are your friends who are not keeping permanent records rather than some corporation bent on converting every aspect of your personality into a data set for selling hotdogs and health insurance.

Mahn 12y ago

> There is no relation between decentralisation and advertisment. Any node can serve you ads. But there's no point in showing ads in a decentralized network since the proceeds would belong to no one. Unless someone controls the client application/interface, but then it's not entirely decentralized.

philwelch 12y ago
The proceeds would belong to the owner of the local node you connect to.
- idlewords 12y ago
  Dammit Chad, stop serving ads or I swear I will slash your tires
einrealist 12y ago
Of course there is. If you need to pay for a node, showing ads may be the only way to finance it. And I also can have a node just for showing ads to a network. Imagine Facebook as the network and the members as peers. There are many peers who just advertise something.
- prawn 12y ago
  Could local businesses act as sponsored nodes somehow?

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> There is no relation between decentralisation and advertisment. Any node can serve you ads. There is a difference between "track you and show you ads" and just "show you ads." A print newspaper can show you ads. > Example: It is easier to hold Google accountable for data in their servers than users of BitTorrent for their data. Not really. If Google or Facebook has your data but your "friends" have access to it, your friends also have your data. They can copy it and keep it indefinitely. Removing the middle man doesn't reduce your own control, it only removes the middle man's control.

wdewind 12y ago
Not parent but... > There is a difference between "track you and show you ads" and just "show you ads." A print newspaper can show you ads. And a federation of networks can get together and decide to share what data they have about you with each other. > Not really. If Google or Facebook has your data but your "friends" have access to it, your friends also have your data. They can copy it and keep it indefinitely. Removing the middle man doesn't reduce your own control, it only removes the middle man's control. Could you clarify this? I'm really not sure what you mean, sorry.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > And a federation of networks can get together and decide to share what data they have about you with each other. Federation means competition. You can choose providers you trust and who agree not to do that. Or you can run your own, which in a properly designed system shouldn't require more than some free software, a domain name and a machine to point it at. Which ordinary people might buy off the shelf as an appliance that plugs into your modem. > Could you clarify this? I'm really not sure what you mean, sorry. OK, so right now you have a funny cat video, so you upload it to YouTube and then post the link on Facebook. So Facebook can tell who you've shared the link with and who has clicked on it, YouTube can tell what you've uploaded and who has watched it, and anyone you've shared it with (or, in the absence of authentication, anyone in the world) can download it and save a copy on their hard drive. In the alternative, you upload the funny cat video to some distributed CDN thing like Freenet or BitTorrent, and then your friends get the link in something that resembles an RSS reader that gets its feeds from something that distributes messages how email does. So anyone you've shared the video with can still download it and keep it but there is nobody who has the complete list of everyone you've shared it with and there is no third party middle man who can keep track of everyone who is looking at it. Whoever is doing the uploading can still tell who is downloading but presumably these are your friends who are not keeping permanent records rather than some corporation bent on converting every aspect of your personality into a data set for selling hotdogs and health insurance.