On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Sylvan Heuser
<address@hidden> 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.