undefined | Better HN

0 pointsspeedplane6y ago0 comments

> It's always amazing to me to hear assumptions that decentralisation is a feature.

Decentralization is not a feature for the end-user, it's a feature to developers. It's probably impossible for a new social network to take on Twitter, Facebook, etc. directly. However, a decentralized social network allows startups to move far quickly and implement other features that the big social networks are lacking.

I suspect that whatever social network eventually pushes out the dominant players today, will use tools like these.

One good precedent for this is AOL. AOL was safer and more user-friendly than the world-wide-web, but the web's decentralized nature allowed competitors to spring up much more quickly. I suspect something similar will eventually happen to today's social networks.

0 comments

lokedhs6y ago

> Decentralization is not a feature for the end-user, it's a feature to developers.

On one hand you are right, it's a huge benefit to developers as they are able to create new services that leverage the strength of the existing network. Such as Peertube getting subscription and commenting features from other servers for free, and it “just works”. Imagine a youtube competitor wanting to leverage Twitter in the same way. Highly unlikely that it would be allowed, and even if it did, the integration would be Twitter-specific.

On the other hand, (at least some) end-users see decentralisation as a huge benefit, and at least in my case it gives me confidence that the whim of a single company can't ruin the experience for me, or even take away the platform altogether.

Most people may not consider this, but some people definitely do. And hopefully that number will increase over time.

Nursie6y ago

Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative.

"Nobody can censor us!"

is absolutely, unfortunately equivalent to -

"Nobody can take down race hatred, online harassment, child abuse images or other evil shit"

And we've adequate evidence now to show that humans will use such platforms to post exactly that sort of stuff. For instance one of the bitcoin forks that allows larger data payloads had child abuse images uploaded to it, in an immutable, permanent way. Many/most people are not OK with that.

I'm not yet seeing a way to balance these concerns.

speedplaneOP6y ago

> Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative.

Just b/c something is decentralized doesn't mean you can't take it down or hide it.

1 more reply

Mirioron6y ago

In the grand scheme of things censorship is the more dangerous thing though. People often don't care about censorship until it affects them, but once it does, they care a lot. There's a reason why the first amendment protects speech. It's the building block for an improving society.

1 more reply

lokedhs6y ago

I'm mostly ambivalent to the censorship debate. What I mean by that is that I can see valid points on both sides.

Most Mastodon instances have pretty strict policies with regards to the speech that is allowed on them. Many instances block federation with other instances whose policies they don't agree with.

Other instances allow pretty much everything (they are usually called “free speech zones”). The result is what you would expect, and they end up being mostly blocked.

I'd argue that it works reasonably well for now (but it may of course change if the Fediverse grows further). Everybody is allowed to say what they want on the Fediverse, but others are not forced to listen to it.

feanaro6y ago

> Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative.

Citation needed, please. This really sounds like your personal opinion presented as a general statement.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsspeedplane6y ago0 comments

> It's always amazing to me to hear assumptions that decentralisation is a feature.

I suspect that whatever social network eventually pushes out the dominant players today, will use tools like these.

0 comments

lokedhs6y ago

> Decentralization is not a feature for the end-user, it's a feature to developers.

Most people may not consider this, but some people definitely do. And hopefully that number will increase over time.

Nursie6y ago

Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative.

"Nobody can censor us!"

is absolutely, unfortunately equivalent to -

"Nobody can take down race hatred, online harassment, child abuse images or other evil shit"

I'm not yet seeing a way to balance these concerns.

speedplaneOP6y ago

> Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative.

Just b/c something is decentralized doesn't mean you can't take it down or hide it.

1 more reply

Mirioron6y ago

1 more reply

lokedhs6y ago

I'm mostly ambivalent to the censorship debate. What I mean by that is that I can see valid points on both sides.

Most Mastodon instances have pretty strict policies with regards to the speech that is allowed on them. Many instances block federation with other instances whose policies they don't agree with.

Other instances allow pretty much everything (they are usually called “free speech zones”). The result is what you would expect, and they end up being mostly blocked.

feanaro6y ago

> Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative.

Citation needed, please. This really sounds like your personal opinion presented as a general statement.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse