Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352 
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Oct 26, 2018 14:51:34 GMT
Over the past few years, it's been said that the internet has become increasingly controlled by a handful of major players. Web traffic and content are now subject to the whims of Big Tech, while governments have drafted up and enacted measures that restrict the flow of information out of alleged concern for national security.
The Decentralized Web Movement, an undertaking that's gaining ground in technologically-acquainted circles, has evolved out of opposition to this growing and often-exploitative oligopoly. It aspires to build--at least in my understanding--a decentralized internet(s) that upends the current arrangement and facilitates privacy, unchecked access to content, thoroughly distributed data storage and an end to centralized control.
We're seeing experimental "prototype" attempts (i.e. dApps) in the here and now, but what do we see for the future of this endeavor and how it will affect society in the long run?
Hopefully, I haven't screwed up on the technicalities and technological workings too much in my premise.
Thank you in advance,
Zyobot
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Oct 28, 2018 7:32:32 GMT
Over the past few years, it's been said that the internet has become increasingly controlled by a handful of major players. Web traffic and content are now subject to the whims of Big Tech, while governments have drafted up and enacted measures that restrict the flow of information out of alleged concern for national security. The Decentralized Web Movement, an undertaking that's gaining ground in technologically-acquainted circles, has evolved out of opposition to this growing and often-exploitative oligopoly. It aspires to build--at least in my understanding--a decentralized internet(s) that upends the current arrangement and facilitates privacy, unchecked access to content, thoroughly distributed data storage and an end to centralized control. We're seeing experimental "prototype" attempts (i.e. dApps) in the here and now, but what do we see for the future of this endeavor and how it will affect society in the long run? Hopefully, I haven't screwed up on the technicalities and technological workings too much in my premise. Thank you in advance, Zyobot I won't claim to be an expert (far from it, in fact), but I do see some difficulties for such a movement, if only because it seems like most people don't care and like how they can always just use the same few sites and tools as everybody else. Social media of course are the worst in that regard, they're only attractive because everyone else is using them. That gives such a userbase that they will automatically turn into megacorporations. At the same time, only large corporations have the resources to maintain them (aside from governments of course). |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 28, 2018 9:55:10 GMT
Over the past few years, it's been said that the internet has become increasingly controlled by a handful of major players. Web traffic and content are now subject to the whims of Big Tech, while governments have drafted up and enacted measures that restrict the flow of information out of alleged concern for national security. The Decentralized Web Movement, an undertaking that's gaining ground in technologically-acquainted circles, has evolved out of opposition to this growing and often-exploitative oligopoly. It aspires to build--at least in my understanding--a decentralized internet(s) that upends the current arrangement and facilitates privacy, unchecked access to content, thoroughly distributed data storage and an end to centralized control. We're seeing experimental "prototype" attempts (i.e. dApps) in the here and now, but what do we see for the future of this endeavor and how it will affect society in the long run? Hopefully, I haven't screwed up on the technicalities and technological workings too much in my premise. Thank you in advance, Zyobot I won't claim to be an expert (far from it, in fact), but I do see some difficulties for such a movement, if only because it seems like most people don't care and like how they can always just use the same few sites and tools as everybody else. Social media of course are the worst in that regard, they're only attractive because everyone else is using them. That gives such a userbase that they will automatically turn into megacorporations. At the same time, only large corporations have the resources to maintain them (aside from governments of course).
A related issue is that a lot of companies make a similar decision in terms of high level managers ask what's the "industrial standard" and decide well we must go with that. The company I used to work for basically did that after we were privatised and a wide range of systems were replaced largely with MS OS. Which is simpler in many ways but does mean a lot of flexibility is lost and you get tied into a single provider. It would be more difficult but probably more effective in the longer run to have a standard base which can be used by multiple systems which would avoid that monopoly position and encourage flexibility. The only exception was a sizeable Unix base because that was used on supercomputers that MS would apply to and it also had a significant base in the organisation which would take a lot of money to even attempt to replace.
I think the problem is when you get managers with little/no technical skills they lacked the knowledge to make effective long term decisions. Also, at least in the UK/US the culture in management is too much what gives the biggest return/share boost over the next 6-12 months because the entire system refused to look any longer ahead.
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Oct 28, 2018 17:48:17 GMT
I won't claim to be an expert (far from it, in fact), but I do see some difficulties for such a movement, if only because it seems like most people don't care and like how they can always just use the same few sites and tools as everybody else. Social media of course are the worst in that regard, they're only attractive because everyone else is using them. That gives such a userbase that they will automatically turn into megacorporations. At the same time, only large corporations have the resources to maintain them (aside from governments of course).
A related issue is that a lot of companies make a similar decision in terms of high level managers ask what's the "industrial standard" and decide well we must go with that. The company I used to work for basically did that after we were privatised and a wide range of systems were replaced largely with MS OS. Which is simpler in many ways but does mean a lot of flexibility is lost and you get tied into a single provider. It would be more difficult but probably more effective in the longer run to have a standard base which can be used by multiple systems which would avoid that monopoly position and encourage flexibility. The only exception was a sizeable Unix base because that was used on supercomputers that MS would apply to and it also had a significant base in the organisation which would take a lot of money to even attempt to replace.
I think the problem is when you get managers with little/no technical skills they lacked the knowledge to make effective long term decisions. Also, at least in the UK/US the culture in management is too much what gives the biggest return/share boost over the next 6-12 months because the entire system refused to look any longer ahead.
Yes, but from what I understand, at least some managers understand that you need different aystems for different applications (many graphics people for instance use Apple). The short-term thinking however is a real issue, and the reason you see so many businesses fail. They just don't really look at or think about long-term investments. At the same time, lots of people are used to Microsoft products like Windows and Office, and they don't want to switch to something else because that would take time. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 28, 2018 22:21:03 GMT
A related issue is that a lot of companies make a similar decision in terms of high level managers ask what's the "industrial standard" and decide well we must go with that. The company I used to work for basically did that after we were privatised and a wide range of systems were replaced largely with MS OS. Which is simpler in many ways but does mean a lot of flexibility is lost and you get tied into a single provider. It would be more difficult but probably more effective in the longer run to have a standard base which can be used by multiple systems which would avoid that monopoly position and encourage flexibility. The only exception was a sizeable Unix base because that was used on supercomputers that MS would apply to and it also had a significant base in the organisation which would take a lot of money to even attempt to replace.
I think the problem is when you get managers with little/no technical skills they lacked the knowledge to make effective long term decisions. Also, at least in the UK/US the culture in management is too much what gives the biggest return/share boost over the next 6-12 months because the entire system refused to look any longer ahead.
Yes, but from what I understand, at least some managers understand that you need different aystems for different applications (many graphics people for instance use Apple). The short-term thinking however is a real issue, and the reason you see so many businesses fail. They just don't really look at or think about long-term investments. At the same time, lots of people are used to Microsoft products like Windows and Office, and they don't want to switch to something else because that would take time.
Some managers do but in my experience their larger the lower level ones with technical knowledge and often get bypassed/ignored by the 'business' experts higher up. Although I think, especially since 1979/80 this has been an especially UK/US problem and parts of the continent at least generally have a more long term viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by alternatehistoryfox on Nov 25, 2020 3:23:00 GMT
The sad thing is if things continue on the path of my future-history setting, then the internet will become fractured as the various states respond to the threat of memetic weapons in their own way. I foresee a lot of authoritarian limitations and restrictions on information and news (and thus the internet) in the coming decades because of memetic and information weapons.
|
|
bassoe
Leading Seaman
Posts: 3
Likes: 2
|
Post by bassoe on Nov 28, 2020 3:58:41 GMT
The IPFS and this wired article are probably relevant to this discussion. Internets impossible to block or censor short of actively hunting down and destroying every single online device running jailbroken software downloaded off one of the internets to turn it into a server node. Usage of the New Nets will probably be made illegal since they were designed from the ground up to be impossible to police against piracy and free speech, but that won't stop people. |
|
|
|
Post by alternatehistoryfox on Nov 28, 2020 5:53:53 GMT
The IPFS and this wired article are probably relevant to this discussion. Internets impossible to block or censor short of actively hunting down and destroying every single online device running jailbroken software downloaded off one of the internets to turn it into a server node. Usage of the New Nets will probably be made illegal since they were designed from the ground up to be impossible to police against piracy and free speech, but that won't stop people. That isn't really the case with new programming and the advent of national firewalls I'm afraid. Also, VPNs aren't that effective as there is software that can track you despite it (and please note that forums have this VPN defeating technology). So it is most likely you're going to see a lot of 'national' (or, very likely, super-national federations/confederations) internets rising with very little cross-pollination. Between that and the bloated corpse that is the HTML language (seriously, that makes Bethesda programming look usable), we're likely not going to have a good time when it comes to freedom of information and news (although the restriction of both is a good thing I'm sad to say). Not when you can essentially track down every single unauthorized server. Remember, MIT made a report on the internet back in 1996 -the 'Cyber Balkans' paper-, and their negative predictions are surprisingly prophetic and on the money. |
|
kyng
Consul General
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 909
|
Post by kyng on Nov 28, 2020 21:20:03 GMT
Over the past few years, it's been said that the internet has become increasingly controlled by a handful of major players. Web traffic and content are now subject to the whims of Big Tech, while governments have drafted up and enacted measures that restrict the flow of information out of alleged concern for national security. The Decentralized Web Movement, an undertaking that's gaining ground in technologically-acquainted circles, has evolved out of opposition to this growing and often-exploitative oligopoly. It aspires to build--at least in my understanding--a decentralized internet(s) that upends the current arrangement and facilitates privacy, unchecked access to content, thoroughly distributed data storage and an end to centralized control. We're seeing experimental "prototype" attempts (i.e. dApps) in the here and now, but what do we see for the future of this endeavor and how it will affect society in the long run? Hopefully, I haven't screwed up on the technicalities and technological workings too much in my premise. Thank you in advance, Zyobot I won't claim to be an expert (far from it, in fact), but I do see some difficulties for such a movement, if only because it seems like most people don't care and like how they can always just use the same few sites and tools as everybody else. Social media of course are the worst in that regard, they're only attractive because everyone else is using them. That gives such a userbase that they will automatically turn into megacorporations. At the same time, only large corporations have the resources to maintain them (aside from governments of course). Sure, most people don't care - yet. However, that's because the problems with a centralized internet aren't yet apparent to your average casual user (or, if they do see these problems, then they attribute them to the specific websites, rather than to the centralized system). I don't think that's sustainable forever: the current major platforms will eventually fall, and their replacements will end up doing the same things (due to user/advertiser pressure), and at that point people will realise that it's a systemic problem. I think a bigger problem for this kind of "decentralization movement" is that, by its very nature, it's unable to recommend any specific alternatives to the Big Tech platforms (otherwise they'll merely be working to 'centralize' the internet around their chosen alternatives). But, if everyone in the movement is just doing their own separate thing, then it'll be hard to keep the movement unified, and stop it from in-fighting... |
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Nov 30, 2020 12:43:58 GMT
I won't claim to be an expert (far from it, in fact), but I do see some difficulties for such a movement, if only because it seems like most people don't care and like how they can always just use the same few sites and tools as everybody else. Social media of course are the worst in that regard, they're only attractive because everyone else is using them. That gives such a userbase that they will automatically turn into megacorporations. At the same time, only large corporations have the resources to maintain them (aside from governments of course). Sure, most people don't care - yet. However, that's because the problems with a centralized internet aren't yet apparent to your average casual user (or, if they do see these problems, then they attribute them to the specific websites, rather than to the centralized system). I don't think that's sustainable forever: the current major platforms will eventually fall, and their replacements will end up doing the same things (due to user/advertiser pressure), and at that point people will realise that it's a systemic problem. I think a bigger problem for this kind of "decentralization movement" is that, by its very nature, it's unable to recommend any specific alternatives to the Big Tech platforms (otherwise they'll merely be working to 'centralize' the internet around their chosen alternatives). But, if everyone in the movement is just doing their own separate thing, then it'll be hard to keep the movement unified, and stop it from in-fighting... There are two ways I could think of to decentralize the internet, the first being governments step in and either take over portions of the internet or break up companies like Google. The second way is maybe some union of internet users which protects the right of internet users, and various internet strikes all other companies to step in and the internet decentralizes that way. |
|
kyng
Consul General
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 909
|
Post by kyng on Feb 20, 2021 21:34:54 GMT
Sure, most people don't care - yet. However, that's because the problems with a centralized internet aren't yet apparent to your average casual user (or, if they do see these problems, then they attribute them to the specific websites, rather than to the centralized system). I don't think that's sustainable forever: the current major platforms will eventually fall, and their replacements will end up doing the same things (due to user/advertiser pressure), and at that point people will realise that it's a systemic problem. I think a bigger problem for this kind of "decentralization movement" is that, by its very nature, it's unable to recommend any specific alternatives to the Big Tech platforms (otherwise they'll merely be working to 'centralize' the internet around their chosen alternatives). But, if everyone in the movement is just doing their own separate thing, then it'll be hard to keep the movement unified, and stop it from in-fighting... There are two ways I could think of to decentralize the internet, the first being governments step in and either take over portions of the internet or break up companies like Google. The second way is maybe some union of internet users which protects the right of internet users, and various internet strikes all other companies to step in and the internet decentralizes that way. Well, I guess the first one is possible, but I don't think the internet would stay decentralized for very long. After the break-up of Big Tech, a small handful of the new companies would probably grow and succeed, at the expense of all the others. That's just the natural end outcome of the current culture, where most casual users want a small number of sites that meet all of their needs: it ends up with everybody going to the same small group of massive sites. The second option seems more likely to keep the internet decentralized - since it would actually represent a change in the culture described above. We're seeing something a bit like it at the moment with the "alt-tech" platforms - but only really with conservatives and right-wingers at this stage. Still, if Facebook, Twitter, etc. do something else to piss off left-wingers (or some other group of people that isn't necessarily political), then their user base could splinter in several different directions, leading to a more decentralized internet. |
|
