Comment by mark_l_watson | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mark_l_watson | Hacker News Reader

I wish it weren’t true but for right now I agree with the author, including what it might take to tip the balance: “1. Complete deterioration of trust such that avoiding the centralization of power becomes a necessity. 4. The decentralization community manages to create clearly superior applications as convenient and reliable as centralized providers.“

I was eager to use GNU Social, and after some use for a year, my host shut down. I just opened another Mastadon account but haven’t started using it yet. Also, the value of centralized services like Twitter is the really interesting people I follow. Social media is best when used as an advertising and directory service for content we put on our own blogs and web sites, but even that seems to be less common.

I really enjoyed the Decentralized Web Conference June 2016, but it also made me slightly sad that fighting back against centralized web, political, corporate, etc. centralization is an uphill fight.

Sometime network power laws suck.

If a complete deterioration of trust is a prequisite for decentralisation winning, then I think it may be its time to shine soon enough. That's what's already behind all the social problems we're facing right now, like increasing polarisation and distrust of the media and the rise in fake news/resurgence of pseudoscience. Add to this people's current disdain for Facebook and Twitter, and the ingredients may be there for decentralised services in that sense.

Whether the second part (the clearly superior applications as convenient and reliable as centralised providers) comes true is probably the main deciding factor about now.

> the value of centralized services like Twitter is the really interesting people I follow

Same as that shitty club with overpriced beers... We go where the interesting people are and the bad ones kept under control.

So anywhere but Twitter then.

I just expanded a bit on my blog: http://markwatson.com/blog/2018/08/25/centralized-vs-distrib...

What about centralized but libre servers and clients, and run by the EFF and FSF? If they one day start behaving badly, we all migrate away to a new benevolent dictator. Or maybe EFF and FSF somehow legally bind themselves to not be able to behave badly, if that's possible. Maybe the domain name is owned by an impartial committee of some kind.

> What about centralized but libre servers and clients, and run by the EFF and FSF

I can't say much about the project right now. But something will land middle to late next year that has this in mind.

Intersting. But you can't say or won't say? Won't, fine by me. Can't, I'm already skeptical of anyone involved.

Don't forget "shouldn't"

I can't because I'm really passionate about this and I'll end up going on a rant. :) But let me give you a glimpse of the scope involved.

For a system to be completely free from censorship, it needs to have a moat around it:

- Own Domain registrar

- Independent Colo provider / Own infrastructure

- Own Payment processor

- Advertising networks / Own Ad Network for individuals

- Content creators, that are free from brigading.

- Company put into a trust, with a board of influential influencers abiding by an internet bill of rights.

Currently no independent platform exists with the above and allows anyone irrespective of their voice or opinion to be heard and be supported by donation, merchandising sales or advertising revenue.

You could say, they are green shoots in the form of d-tube, bitchute, steemit, but they are still very early in the process and do have a high surface area of attack.

There's a lot wrong with the current system and I aim to fix that. >)

Oh and I'm not at the beginning of the journey either. 3/4 of the 6 times I know how to implement. It's really all about making sure that it definitely is do-able and generates enough revenue year 1 to ensure it survives to year 3-5.

That sounds good! Hopefully I will see the HN announcement when it is released.

>For a system to be completely free from censorship, it needs to have a [moat (aka Own Ad Network)] around it:

It looks like "free from censorship" and having an "ad network" are contradictory properties.

If one invents an uncensored website e.g. "www.uncensorablecontent.com" -- that allows any content (including uncensorable child porn and uncensorable beheadings), advertisers like Pepsi and Toyota will avoid it. The site's freedom of speech ideals become radioactive to advertiser funding.

Unless you're deliberately foregoing mainstream advertisers by intentional design. That's fine but that also means you're limited to niche advertisers which also means your content creators will have a smaller revenue pie to receive ad payments from.

Those economics creates a feedback loop because the content creators making mainstream videos (e.g. harmless pop music videos or gardening tutorials) don't need the freedom properties of UncensorableContent.com and would just use a centralized site like Youtube because the mainstream advertisers are there and that's where the money is. Therefore, through the self-selection of certain content creators being restricted to outlets like UncensorableContent.com, it evolves to become a haven for unsavory content even if the architectural intention was to be a place for everybody's "good" content.

I want the platform to be like cable television. 10000s of channels. If someone doesn't like a particular channel because they don't believe in the content. Simply block it and move on.

If someone comes across a user in the comments, whose views they don't agree with. Simply block them too and them move on.

What I would like to do, is put the agency back into the hands of the user. I don't want them to be coddled. I believe everyone is better by listening to viewpoints from those even if we don't agree with it. There's always something to be learned.

When it comes to advertisers, well they are advertising on the channel. They are not necessarily supporting the platform. My wish would be, that once launched, going forward users understand that when Toyota sponsors a channel, they are sponsoring that user and adverting to that audience. They aren't sponsoring another user elsewhere which is banging on the table for Trump to build that wall 10ft higher.

That said. In the beginning, I will be forgoing mainstream advertisers. It is my belief that they will eventually see the light. That the user has full agency and they can craft the platform to cater to their needs and what they want to watch.

Finally, terrorism, child porn, revenge porn, nudity and all that nonsense will not be welcome on the platform.

Look, the central tenant is for everyone to be welcome. Craft an audience on whatever they feel to be passionate and to be able to make a living. With no fear of being de-platformed because there is a minority that wishes to subdue another minority. I believe such censorship is a slippery slope. That's all.

Can you say more about the stack you are building? Are we talking open source? What language are you writing this in?

Sure.

It's completely open source.

1) VueJS/Bootstrap for the UI.

2) GoLang API for the UI and the backend MQ/Job workers.

3) VideoJS for the player.

4) Not sure about the DB Yet, either Postgres or Memsql.

5) SideKiq for the Job Queue.

6) Nats.io for the MQ.

7) Centrifugal/centrifuge for the real-time messaging layer.

8) Probably React/Vue Nativefor the mobile application. Whichever one works out best on mobile.

>Finally, terrorism, child porn, revenge porn, nudity and all that nonsense will not be welcome on the platform.

I support them not being welcome.

How do you plan on keeping them out if this is open source and supposed to be censorship free?

Let be preface by first saying, that when this gets off the ground. There is going to be a huge learning curve. I am humble enough to say, I don't know what I don't know.

So, I will have to meet the challenges and handle them as best as I can.

That said, from what I understand. There are companies which have developed ML tools with government assistance from the UK. That can detect whether a video is terrorism.

So if you run with that thread, perhaps similar tools will be available to the other content.

I'm sure as time goes on, other complex systems will evolve to meet said challenges.

That falls under won't, which is understandable. Can't implies someone is legally preventing you from talking about it.

I didn’t see an easy way to move my quitter.no posts to my new Mastodon host.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com