The problems with P2P is not problems of tech, they’re problems of incentives. The tech exists and it’s mostly solved — it’s just that anyone who is capable of building such a thing is not incentivised to do so, because that work could be spent in more productive (i.e. money-making) endeavours than what will by definition be incapable of making money since it explicitly decentralises the concentration of power.<p>So if Jack wants you to come build it, and you’re a P2P person, you should go work for him in even if you don’t like him, because he has both the willingness to pay for it, and the broadcast power to make it mainstream. And those are the main problems that needs to be solved, not tech.<p>I know this because I’m going through the same thing myself — I work on Aether (<a href="https://getaether.net" rel="nofollow">https://getaether.net</a>), which is close to what I think he is talking about.<p>If we want ourselves to solve this, and not rely on <i>@jack</i>s of the world, we need to find a way to make P2P into a viable business. For me, in the end I decided to create a Pro version for use within companies, so that the P2P version can be fully free of monetisation concerns.
Submitted title was "Micro.blog founder on Twitter's bluesky project". That's good information! but the place to add it is as a first comment in the thread, not in the submission title.<p><a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22level%20playing%20field%22&sort=byDate&type=comment" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html</a>
I'm suspicious of motives here as much as anyone, but I think the issue of policy enforcement (and policy itself) is very important here. It already occurred to me that Mastodon and Gab were, despite being worst enemies, together inadvertently creating a reasonable content meta-policy. Some people want freedom of expression, some people want protection from objectionable material. With ActivityPub, you can choose your gatekeeper, and still more or less exist in the same social universe.
So like... Doesn't the open web exist? We have RSS feeds for subscription.<p>I guess we need a way to share things we've liked?<p>Retweets should be representable through RSS entries.<p>Hashtags are just searchable text.
They should just use ActivityPub. Sure it has problems, but federating with their biggest decentralized competitors would signal that they are serious. Improving the protocol can come next.
Open Source has generated $Trillions in value creation over the last few decades.<p>Twitter is fighting to stay relevant, they dropped to Top 35 website from Top 14 in last several months.<p>This is an opportunity for them to become a global standard, and that is worth it.<p>The most important piece is that they can scale when they pull it off. I've been working on decentralized tech for a while (I run <a href="https://github.com/amark/gun" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/amark/gun</a>) and can say it takes a lot of attention that most projects (dare I say "blockchains") have no scaling abilities at all.
> If Twitter is hoping to outsource curation to shared protocols,<p>I don't think they would ever do that. It would be really dangerous to implement and would possibly expose an unfiltered stream of partially illegal content.<p>I mean, can you imagine "validate if this is an unsolicited dickpic", or "verify if this is a dox attempt", or "verify this is cp"? This is one area that can never be exposed to non-employees.
I have a question, what is it about blockchain that's so attractive to every new idea nowadays?<p>New social network? Blockchain!<p>New news platform? Blockchain!<p>I get what blockchain is. I get how it's used in cryptocurrency transactions. But will someone please explain why it's being incorporated into industries that always have done (and IMO can continue to do) just fine without it?<p>I skim through this [1] list, and see no clear benefit to incorporating blockchain into most/all of these? Most of them seem to be using it as 'secure database' or something.<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/04/11/20-real-world-uses-for-blockchain-technology.aspx" rel="nofollow">https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/04/11/20-real-world-uses...</a>
It’s an experiment to explore a distributed Twitter. People read way too much into those tweets. It seems clear that they will evaluate existing projects, and technologies and make their own decisions.<p>More competition in this domain is a very good sign IMHO.
This seems right. Twitter is not engaging in this in pursuit of real openness, and the end result--if anything--is unlikely to be better for twitter users.
Attempts to decentralize are so decentralized. Still only TOR and Eth are somewhat functioning.<p>Let's see what Telegram Open Network will offer.