Forgot to actually link to the article in bullet "b)". Here it is: http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/19/1840238/Free-Software-To-Save-Us-From-Social-Networks
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Henry Litwhiler <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Sylvan Heuser <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > In short, it isn't going to be successful if it is not also better, in >> > addition to being free (as in speech) and private. >> Agree. But don't underestimate how many people do care about privacy. >> Those will be the first signing up and I am confident that this will >> already suffice to create a solid user base. >> > > You're absolutely right there - they *would* create a solid user base. But > this project can't just be about building a solid user base - it has to also > be about protecting the right to privacy that many people are losing by > signing up for social networking sites like Facebook. And the best thing > that we can do to convert your "everyday user" (ie. people who have signed > up for Facebook) is to not only "market" it as a tool that enables enhanced > privacy, but also as a tool that is *better* (in the way of features, > etc.). > > >> >> > It will be almost impossible for us to make this more convenient to >> > set up than centralized alternatives (it's easier to just create an >> > account on a web site than it is to setup a home social networking >> > server) - that is something we will have to accept. >> Disagree. If I am not mistaken, then idea is to have the possibility to >> grab a copy and set it up on your own server (and that even with limited >> technical knowledge). But this will only be necessary if you don't trust >> someone other to store your data. >> > > To me, at least, decentralization is a very important thing, and the GNU > Social project can serve not only as a way of pulling people out of these > über-centralized social networking sites but also as a way of changing the > way the internet works at a fundamental level. > > If it gets to be that several people are using the GNU Social application > on the same, remote host, it will have become no better than tools currently > available - you're still storing your data on a server owned by people who > could, theoretically, do what they want with your data. > > Of course, some people would say that they *trust* the people that are > hosting their GNU Social install, and that may be valid argument for > outsourcing the hosting. Either way, it stinks of putting all your eggs in > one basket. > > >> Take Jabber/XMPP as an example: There are many open servers out there, >> and the user can choose which one will be routing his/her messages. >> No one should be forced to get an own server (install) in order to >> participate in GNU Social. >> > > a) If we make it so easy to install that little-to-no technical expertise > would be required, why not? > b) This article suggests that a small, dedicated server could be installed > in every home at very low cost. Of course, there are *very* few people who > would buy a computer for the sole purpose of hosting a GNU Social install - > instead, that could just be one of many functions of the computer, along > with things like a home media server, home backup server, etc. > c) Perhaps we should look at it in a more P2P way. Rather than users having > these deep, hard-to-maintain server installs, perhaps they could just have a > little application running at all times in their dock (or OS-specific > equivalent), serving their data to those who try to access it, and providing > a simple desktop settings window. > > >> >> > The only way that we can bring high usership despite that drawback is >> > if the product defeats centralized alternatives in most of the >> > remaining categories (features, ease-of-use, etc.). While this may be >> > something of a daunting task, I have no doubt that we are capable of >> > overcoming it. >> ...and there isn't even a drawback, so it will be even better :) >> >> > That said, this project will not (regardless of design or intentions) >> > be just an alternative to preexisting social networking sites - it >> > will be a solid foundation for the decentralization of the internet as >> > we know it. >> Not just >> > >> > ISPs, however, soon learned that they could make more money by forcing >> > people to pay to run their own web servers properly, and thus came >> > this idea of dynamic IP addresses, which will be a serious but >> > certainly solvable roadblock to any project (including this one) that >> > seeks to move the internet towards decentralization. >> The lease time for dynamic broadband IP addresses are typically very >> long. And bear in mind that this is also a privacy feature and a way to >> reduce the administrative work needed. I don't think that ISPs >> implemented this to cut down the use of home servers, and indeed, they >> probably gain more money like this, but because there is no need to >> update huge tables of static addresses - the DHCP protocol does that job >> and makes their net more flexible in terms of adding devices (customers) >> to it, et cetera. >> > > The dynamic IP thing is really *not* going to be a big issue - there are a > variety of very simple workarounds. > > >> >> > From there, personal web servers died out, to the point where only >> > commercial enterprises actually ran their own servers, which brings us >> > to today. >> >> > The internet's capability for users to directly connect to one another >> > is left underutilized. >> No it isn't. Asymmetric DSL connections (like most Internet users I know >> have) are not suitable for serving large amounts of data at high speed. >> That is why there are dedicated datacenters with special connections. >> > >> > By utilizing a variety of decentralization peer discovery and >> > authentication techniques, we can override any attempts by ISPs to >> > prevent direct user-to-user communication, and allow any and all users >> > to host their own data on their own servers. >> I don't know what authentication has to do with this (an IP can never >> replace user authentication under normal circumstances), but ISPs are >> trying to prevent filesharing activity, not P2P connections in general. >> >> > Another (perhaps underrepresented) advantage to the usage of such an >> > open, decentralized system is the idea of data preservation. Websites >> > come and go (both in the sense of losing popularity, and in the >> > related sense of shutting down completely), often leaving users >> > lacking all their old social interactions and personal data. I'm not >> > talking about the related privacy concerns (though those are certainly >> > relevant) but instead of the preservation and continuity of data. By >> > standardizing a certain (open) format for private data of many types, >> > we can ensure that the private data and, ultimately, the entirety of >> > internet culture, is never lost to the changing of technology. >> Agree. But control also means that you have to be able to end that >> preservation whenever you want. >> > >> -- >> S. >> >> >
