3 ms·
I don't really get your point - that's an extremely helpful analogy. The web is based around HTTP, a deliberately decentralised protocol with no single host th
by halo 17y ago
I don't really get your point - that's an extremely helpful analogy.
The web is based around HTTP, a deliberately decentralised protocol with no single host that could take the entire web down at once. If Twitter goes down, or even a prominent web-host, the entire web doesn't go down with it. This is an extremely useful property, because even if your favourite site is down, you can still use other parts of the web.
On the other hand, Twitter, Facebook and other social networks are centralised. Unlike the web and HTTP, if they go down, you can't do anything to do with those services.
- pyre 17y agoThe point isn't "if Facebook goes down I can't access Facebook." The point is "if Facebook goes down everyone on Facebook can't access Facebook." If social-networking was a series of web-software packages running on servers (whether self-maintained or managed by a 3rd party -- something like what Wordpress/LiveJournal/Blogger are to blogs) that communicated with each other, then if my social-networking node goes down I obviously can't access it. But other people's nodes are still accessible by me and by them. It's just my node that has dropped out of the network (granted it's possible that your node dropping off of the network could also take your permissions with it -- i.e. you would only have access to public content until your node was back up).