moxie seems to believe there are only two options for how services can be hosted: self-hosting or commercial hosting.

completely ignoring community hosting.

that reinforces my feel that community hosting is one of the biggest advantages of fedi.

(he is absolutely right that is crap, of course)

I honestly wonder why much attention is paid to moxie's rants, the millionaire who stood in front of #36C3 and basically said that
consensus is hard, therefore we should just do everything his way.

I suppose it's partly the same reason gates, bezos, zuckerberg et al get attention; because they got obscenely economically rich through being tech entrepreneurs and somehow "we" still admire "got rich".

@keith @rysiek that's not entirely fair, he did contribute useful crypto and security work for years before turning into the soft-spoken counterrevolutionary asshat he is today

I presume this thread is a response to Moxie's take on centralized vs. federated communication along these lines?

@rysiek @sheogorath @eaon @keith

@rysiek I'm no great fan of Moxie's persistent doomsaying about decentralization. But this piece does makes some valid points that deserve a substantial response. Intriguingly, his observations about the inherent limitations of pure P2P designs - in an age of mobiles and browsers as the main user agent - kind of supports arguments that federated technologies are more likely to achieve some degree of redecentralization of the net. Modulo community-hosting working out.

@sheogorath @eaon @keith


"Eventually, all the web3 parts are gone, and you have a website for buying and selling JPEGS with your debit card. The project can’t start as a web2 platform because of the market dynamics, but the same market dynamics and the fundamental forces of centralization will likely drive it to end up there."

@rysiek @sheogorath @eaon @keith


@strypey @sheogorath @eaon @keith yeah, as I said:

"(he is absolutely right that is crap, of course)"

· · Web · 2 · 0 · 1

... and:

"We should accept the premise that people will not run their own servers by designing systems that can distribute trust without having to distribute infrastructure. This means architecture that anticipates and accepts the inevitable outcome of relatively centralized client/server relationships, but uses cryptography (rather than infrastructure) to distribute trust."

@rysiek @sheogorath @eaon @keith

> designing systems that can distribute trust without having to distribute infrastructure

If you can distribute trust across a cluster of servers run by a single organization, surely there are effective ways to distribute trust across a cluster of servers run by different organizations?

@rysiek @sheogorath @eaon @keith

he's also right that few people want to run servers
the solution is not to give in to centralization though. IMHO the solution is P2P, then there are no servers to run
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!