TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Why decentralized social services fail

39 pointsby ninegunpiover 7 years ago

7 comments

jasodeover 7 years ago
<i>&gt;The “why” is not technical.</i><p>This is one of thr few essays about decentralization that understands that the problem isn&#x27;t technical.<p>However, I&#x27;d go further than his explanations of incentives and say that the fundamental problem is that decentralized <i>technical protocols</i> do not solve the <i>centralization of how money is spent</i>.<p>Examples of that misunderstanding:<p>- SMTP the protocol is decentralized (technical) and yet we have giant email providers GMail&#x2F;Hotmail&#x2F;Yahoo which is centralized (money). The big providers spent $$$ on 1 gigabyte mail storage + backups + convenience. SMTP specifies how fields are laid out but it doesn&#x27;t put money in everyone&#x27;s bank account so they can run residential SMTP servers so the email ecosystem stays decentralized.<p>- Git the protocol is decentralized (technical) but Github the service is centralized (money). Why? Because Git the technical protocol is not a bank fund that gives every programmer a free $10 VPS account to host their own git repo. The centralization of money spent (Github invests in a datacenter but individual programmers do not) results in centralization.<p>- Bitcoin protocol is decentralized (technical) and yet the phenomenon of giant China &quot;mining pools&quot; emerges which is centralization (money). The ability to spend money on liquid cooled ASIC chips in a datacenter located near the Artic Circle is &quot;centralized&quot; to the entities that can spend that vast amount of money. The exceeds the ability for the home enthusiasts to compute hashes on a spare computer in their bedroom.<p>The common theme: technical protocols can be decentralized but the <i>real-world implementation</i> of those protocols end up centralized because physical things like cpus, harddrives, network bandwidth, etc cost money.<p>This pattern of <i>decentralized technical protocols</i> vs <i>centralized economic behavior</i> is ignored by virtually all decentralization enthusiasts.<p>So the real puzzle to decentralization is, <i>&quot;How do we _decentralize economic behavior_ when everybody doesn&#x27;t have the same amount of money to spend?&quot;</i> Nobody I&#x27;ve read about so far has figured that out . That includes Sandstorm&#x2F;IPFS&#x2F;Filecoin&#x2F;Mastadon&#x2F;Diaspora&#x2F;Ethereum etc.
评论 #15558542 未加载
评论 #15558581 未加载
评论 #15558439 未加载
评论 #15558582 未加载
评论 #15563062 未加载
dustfingerover 7 years ago
<i>Brilliant technical solutions are solutions to problems that people have, not problems we want to solve. As soon as there will be a serious problem, which can be solved by decentralized or federated social service — it will be solved graciously, designs are in place already.</i><p>Decentralized technology is in fact trying to solve a serious problem, but sadly it is a problem that most people choose to ignore in favor of the incentives offered by Facebook and other monolithic centralized services.<p><i>However, Facebook et al. provide and maintain huge, single-point-of-entry, solely owned, walled gardens with hostile privacy policies and yet they successfully serve millions of users...</i><p>err... try billions of users
评论 #15558591 未加载
评论 #15558713 未加载
评论 #15558401 未加载
dredmorbiusover 7 years ago
<i>Most</i> social services fail.<p>There&#x27;ve been a slew of attempts. A handful, and I mean that literally, hit the big time at any moment: Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, VK, Twitter, Reddit.<p>(That handful&#x27;s composition may change, but its count largely doesn&#x27;t. Zipf&#x27;s Law may hold a clue as to why.)<p>Even massively financed efforts fail: Google+. I&#x27;m one of the ghosts in the ghost town, and measured the activity to boot.<p>Services who&#x27;ve studied other failures ... fail. Imzy.<p>Services who&#x27;ve gotten big ... fail. MySpace.<p>Services who sell for near a billion dollars ... fail. Bebo.<p>Even services that ... sort of succeed, fail to generate sustainable revenues. Twitter and Reddit.<p>There are many problems, and initially, they tend overwhelmingly to be <i>social</i> -- who is on the network. Several of the noteable successes hit big, in particular Usenet, Slashdot, and Facebook, at least in their day. Draw the <i>wrong</i> initial crowd, and you&#x27;ll be hampered by it forever.<p>There&#x27;s a whole slew of other challenges: spam, abuse, asshats, network and system attacks, costs, UI&#x2F;UX, performance, relevance, utility, and more. Whilst there are technical components, many of the elements are dominated by soft-skills.<p>Commercial and centralised systems have tended to be the more successful, through technical simplicity and funding, though there are noncommercial successes: Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation, MetaFilter.<p>And some interesting efforts at a slow boil: GnuSocial, Diaspora, Mastodon.<p>I&#x27;m not convinced decentralisation is the core problem.
评论 #15559955 未加载
nwah1over 7 years ago
This is true not just of social networks, but decentralized technology in general. There&#x27;s incentive structures that make it cheaper and easier for everyone to outsource everything, and outsourcing in the realm of technology has large economies of scale. Even though email is listed as a premier example of decentralization, it is also de facto centralized around gmail and a few other major providers.<p>Although, the open standardization and lack of lock-in that email provides is something to shoot for, and seems to be attainable.
评论 #15559999 未加载
评论 #15558506 未加载
mxuribeover 7 years ago
Yeah, as much of a fan as i am of decentralization, i have to acknowledge that certainly - and unfortunately - any challenges to wider participation are not merely technically, but do consist of &quot;soft&quot; challenges, such as those related to behavior, incentives, and such. Its a tough nut to crack, no doubt. I&#x27;m sure early adopters of other similar systems like email brought up similar questions back in the day.<p>Although, one has to wonder, do the folks leading the charge for these decentralized services really want each and every single person on facebook to over-night migrate to the new communities? Maybe; but i would gather maybe not. Maybe it started with some programmer simply scratching their own itch, and offering others to &quot;come on over and have fun at our party&quot;? It&#x27;s fun and encouraging to hear recent popularity with some decentralized platforms. And my being a fan of such platforms does bias me; triggering delight in me when i hear such news. But I don&#x27;t believe that the default (or only) goal of any decentralized social service is to amass the maximum number of users. Wouldn&#x27;t that be more of a goal for a <i>centralized</i> silo, or a shiny, new startup? If i set up my own Gnu Social server&#x2F;instance and my family, and i use it to post fun stuff for ourselves, maybe that&#x27;s my only goal.
k__over 7 years ago
In Germany we have public and private TV, why can&#x27;t we have something like this for decentralized social services?<p>The public TV&#x2F;radio is meant to help people with opinion making independent of the government and private corps.<p>A public corp could develop the software, promote it and inform people about the usage, but the software could run decentralized on home PCs or smartphones etc.
评论 #15558877 未加载
infodroidover 7 years ago
I don&#x27;t think the focus on incentives is the best way to look at the problem.<p>A different perspective is that decentralized social services fail because of the lack of capital&#x2F;revenue and sufficient management structure to compete with their centralized, commercial counterparts.<p>Money can fund a team of great designers, engineers, testers, marketers, sysadmins, writers, translators, product managers, to name a few. Together they can roll out and maintain a service that meets high standards of quality, uptime, usability, reliability, engagement, customer support... The things that <i>actually</i> matter to people.<p>Decentralized solutions really don&#x27;t stand a chance against a well-funded company.