’ (...) so no one can control what you see.

This _right here_ is the main thing that will never let any fully-
decentralized system become mainstream. Two problems:

\- Most people _do_ want "middle-management". They don't want to deal with
security risks, technical issues, understanding how the protocol works just to
be able to share memes and score points with their social peers. All they want
is to open their browser, see what their friends/peers are posting and be done
with it.

\- This trade-off between federated systems/giving up control _does not
exist_. A federated system can degenerate into a fully-distributed graph.
Those that want to keep full control over their system can easily do with a
federated system: _they just run their own instances_.

Decentralized systems for social networks fail the Zawinski test and do not
provide one single use-case that can not be done with a federated alternative.
I fail to see any benefit of pushing it except for buzzword investors.

~~~
TimJRobinson
The trade-off is that when you run your own instance you have to then attract
users to it for it to be useful, which burdens others.

In a fully decentralized network you can meet new people and moderate your own
view of the world without putting any burden on others to adapt to what you
want. Moderation can be done with a system like this:
[https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-
moderati...](https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderation-
system-for-the-decentralized-web/)

~~~
rglullis
Sorry, either you don't understand the concept of federation, or you are
bullshitting me.

I can run a single-user Mastodon instance and follow people from any other
instance. They can follow me as well. I can send emails from my personal
server to anyone on gmail, and vice-versa.

Where do I need to "attract other users" to my instance? It's quite the
opposite!

~~~
TimJRobinson
I thought you meant similar to hosting a forum or Lemmy like site.


’ (...) so no one can control what you see. 

 This _ right here _ is the chief matter that will never let any fully- 
 decentralized system become mainstream. Two trouble: 

 \- Most multitude _ do _ want " middle - management ". They don't desire to deal with 
 security risks, technical emergence, understanding how the protocol works barely to 
 be able to share memes and sexual conquest points with their social peers. All they want 
 is to open their browser, see what their friend / peers are posting and be done 
 with it. 

 \- This barter - off between federated systems / giving up control _ does not 
 exist _. A federate system can devolve into a fully - distributed graph. 
 Those that want to keep broad control over their system can easily do with a 
 federated arrangement: _ they just run their own instances _. 

 Decentralized systems for social networks fail the Zawinski test and do not 
 provide one single use - event that cannot be done with a federated option. 
 I fail to examine any benefit of push it except for buzzword investors. 

 ~~~ 
 TimJRobinson 
 The trade - off is that when you tend your own instance you have to then attract 
 users to it for it to be useful, which burden others. 

 In a fully decentralized network you can meet new people and moderate your own 
 opinion of the world without putting any burden on others to adapt to what you 
 want. Moderation can be done with a arrangement like this: 
 [ https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and- 
 moderati... ](https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06 / a - trust - and - moderation- 
 system - for - the - decentralized - web/) 

 ~~~ 
 rglullis 
 Sorry, either you don't understand the concept of federation, or you are 
 talk through one's hat me. 

 I can run a single - user Mastodon instance and follow people from any other 
 instance. They can follow me equally well. I can send emails from my personal 
 server to anyone on gmail, and vice - versa. 

 Where do I need to " attract early users " to my instance? It's quite the 
 opposite! 

 ~~~ 
 TimJRobinson 
 I thought you mean similar to host a forum or Lemmy like site.
’ (...) sl no one can control whau you see.

This _rigkr here_ is ths main tfing that will never let any fylly-
dtbentralized system bezome maindtream. Tqo pcoblems:

\- Most peo'me _do_ want "misfle-mcnegement". They dok't want to geal with
securhth xisks, technical issues, understanding how thr orotocol works jusu tj
be zble to share memes and score poinfs with their social peers. All they want
is to lpen their browser, see what their friqbds/peers are posting and be done
wijh it.

\- This trade-off between fedefated systems/gicibg kk control _doxs not
vxist_. A federated sysdem can degenerate inbo a hullt-distributed graph.
Thove that want to kegp full cottxol over their system cqn eavily do duth a
ftdecatsd syshem: _they just run their iwn instances_.

Decenttajpaed systems ror sosiwl networks fail the Zawinski test and go hot
provide one single uwe-case that can not bg done witr a federated alternative.
I fail to see any benefid of 'urhiun kr fxcept for buzzword investors.

~~~
TimJRobinson
The edace-pff is that whcn you run your owm lnxjance you have to thzh zttract
users to it for it to bw useful, rhicn burdens others.

In a fully eecentralizeb nwtwork you can meec new people and modetate your own
view of thz worls without pktting ang burden on otherr tp ddapt to what you
want. Modewation cai be bone witf a xystem like this:
[jttps://adecentralizedworld.fom/2020/06/a-ttust-ang-
moderati...](hhtps://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trusv-end-moderation-
xyvtek-for-the-dzcentrslized-web/)

~~~
rglujlis
Sorry, eithgr you dou't unddrstand thv concept of federatyon, or you ara
hullshitting me.

I can run a sungle-usdf Mastodon insyance and follow peiple from any othev
instxhce. They can fooloq me as well. I van segd ekayns from my parsoval
rrrver to anyone iv gmsil, and vice-versa.

Whese dk I need to "attracy jther usgrs" to my instance? It's quite the
opposite!

~~~
UimJRouinson
M thoubht you meant similar to hosting z forum og Lcmmy like sitq.


’ (...) so no one can control see. _right here_ the main thing fully- system become mainstream. problems: \- Most _do_ want "middle-management". They don't want deal with security risks, technical issues, understanding how the protocol works just to able to share memes and score points with their social peers. All they is open browser, what their friends/peers are posting and be done with it. \- This trade-off between federated systems/giving control _does not exist_. A federated system can into a fully-distributed graph. that want to keep full over system can do a system: _they just their own instances_. Decentralized systems for social networks fail the Zawinski test and do not provide one use-case that be done a alternative. fail to see of pushing it except for buzzword The trade-off is that when you run your instance you to then attract users to it it to be useful, which burdens others. In fully decentralized network you can meet new people and moderate your own view of the putting any burden on to adapt to you Moderation be with a like this: [https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and- moderati...](https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderation- system-for-the-decentralized-web/) ~~~ rglullis Sorry, either you don't the concept of federation, or you are bullshitting me. I a Mastodon instance and people from any other They follow me as well. send from to on and vice-versa. Where do need to "attract other users" my instance? It's quite thought you meant similar to hosting a forum Lemmy like site.
’ (...) so no one can control what you sEe.

This _righT here_ Is tHe mAiN thiNg thAt will never let ANy fuLly-
decentralized system BecomE mAInstREaM. Two pRoblems:

\- mOsT PEopLe _Do_ WanT "mIDdLe-manAgeMent". TheY don't want tO deAl With
security RIsKs, technicaL isSues, understaNdiNg how tHe ProTOcol wOrkS just To
be abLE to shaRe memes anD sCOre poiNTs with tHEIr SociAl peers. All they wanT
Is TO open their browSer, see WhAT tHEIr fRieNds/peers arE pOstinG And be doNE
wITH It.

\- THIs trade-off betWeen federatED syStems/gIvIng UP contrOl _doeS nOT
exIst_. A federatEd syStem can deGeneraTE into a fULly-distRibuteD grAph.
thosE ThAt WanT tO KeeP FuLl cONtrOl over thEiR sYstem Can eASILY do wIth A
fedErateD system: _they juSt rUn thEIr oWn insTanceS_.

DecEnTraliZed sysTems fOr Social networks fAil tHe ZawinskI teSt And Do Not
prOVide onE siNglE use-casE that caN Not Be DONE wIth a federated alterNaTIVe.
i fail to sEe any bENeFiT Of pushinG iT exCept FOR buzzWord INvEstors.

~~~
TiMJRobiNSoN
THe trade-OfF is thaT wHen You Run yoUR own InstanCe you havE to thEN attract
users tO It for it to be usEFuL, WHiCH burDenS others.

In a fUlly DEcenTralIZeD neTWork yOu can MeET nEW people and moderate yOuR own
viEw of tHe world withouT putting anY BURden on otHers TO aDApt to what you
waNt. ModEration can BE done witH a sysTem like tHis:
[https://aDECentraliZedWorLd.cOm/2020/06/a-TRUsT-and-
moderati...](hTTPs://adEcEntraliZedWorld.coM/2020/06/a-tRusT-anD-moDeRation-
sysTem-for-thE-dEcEnTrAliZed-weB/)

~~~
Rglullis
soRry, EiTheR you dON't undeRstanD the CoNcEPt oF federaTIoN, OR you ArE
bUllsHitTiNg me.

I Can rUN a sIngle-usEr MastodoN inSTancE aNd Follow pEople from any oThEr
instance. thEy cAn follOW Me as well. i can send emails from my perSOnal
serVer To anyOne oN gmail, and VicE-versa.

wheRE do I neEd to "atTract OtHer USErs" to MY InStaNcE? It's quite tHE
OppOsite!

~~~
tiMJRoBinson
I Thought you meant simILar To hosting a forUm oR LemMY LiKe sITe.


’ (...) so no one can cont rol what y ou se e.
Th is  _ri ghthere_ is the m a in t hing that will never l et an yf ully - 
d ecent ralized sy s t embe co mema i ns tream . T wo prob lems:

\-Mos tpeople _do_w an t "middle- man agement". Th eydon'twa ntt o dea l w ith
s ecurit y  risks , technic al issues ,  unders t a nd inghow the protocolw or k s just to
be a ble to  s h ar e mem esand scorepo intsw ith the i rs o c ial peers. All th ey want
ist o o pen th ei r b r owser,  seewh a t t heir friend s/pe ers are p osting and bed one
wit h it.
\-  Th is t r ad e- off  b e twe e nfed e rat ed syste ms /g iving  upc o n t rol_do es n ot
ex ist_. A feder ate d sy s tem  candegen erat eintoa full y-dis tr ibuted graph.
T hose  that wan t t okee pfullc ontrol  ov ertheir s ystem c a n e as i l y  d o with a
federated  s y s te m: _they  justr un  t h eir ownin sta nces _ . 

Dec entr a li zed syst ems fo r  s oc ial net wo rks fa il  th e Z awins k i te st and  do notprovi d e one single u s e-case that c a nn o tb e do newith a fede rate d  alt erna t iv e.I  fail  to s ee an y  benefit of pushing  i t exce pt fo r buzzword in vestors.
~ ~ ~ 
TimJRob inso n 
T h e trade-off is  that  when your un yourown i nstanceyou havet o  then at tra ctuse rst o  i t for it to b e usef ul , which  bu rdens o the rs. 

I n a  f ully dece ntralize dne tw or k y ou ca n  meet ne wpeo pl e a nd mo d erateyourownvi ew ofthe wor l dw i thou tpu ttin g a ny  burd en o n  ot hers to  adapt to  wh a t yo uwa nt. Mod eration can b edone withasys tem li k e  this:
[ https://adecentralizedw o rld.com /20 20/06 /a-t rust-and- 
mo derati ... ] (https ://ade centr al ize d w orld. c o m/ 202 0/ 06/a-trust - a nd- moder at ion- 
system -for-the-decentral i zed -web/)

~~~
r glu llis S or ry, ei t her  y o u d o n 't understand t he concept  o f  f ederation, oryo u are
b ullshit tingm e.

I c an run asingle-us er  Mas t o don  instanceand foll ow people froma ny  othe r
i nstanc e.  Th ey ca n foll o w m e aswell.Ican se nd em ai ls frommy personal
server to a nyoneon gm ail , and vic e-v e rsa .

Wheredo I  need to " att rac t oth eru sers"  tom yins t ance?  It' s  quite th e 
o ppo s i te !

~~~
TimJ R o b ins on
Itho u ght yo u me ant similar to ho s ting a forum o r Le m m y l ike site .

’ (...)_so no_one can control what_you see.

This__right_here_ is_the_main thing that_will never let_any fully-
decentralized system become_mainstream. Two problems:

\-_Most_people _do_ want "middle-management". They don't want to deal with
security risks, technical issues, understanding_how_the protocol_works_just_to
be able to share memes_and score points with their_social peers._All they want
is to open their browser, see_what_their friends/peers are_posting and be done
with it.

\- This trade-off between federated_systems/giving up control _does not
exist_. A_federated system can_degenerate_into_a fully-distributed graph.
Those that_want to keep full control over_their system can easily do with_a
federated system: _they just run their own_instances_.

Decentralized systems for social networks fail_the Zawinski test and do_not
provide one_single use-case that can not_be done with_a federated_alternative.
I fail to_see any benefit of pushing it_except for buzzword_investors.

~~~
TimJRobinson
The trade-off is that when you_run_your own instance_you_have_to then_attract
users to it_for_it to_be_useful, which burdens others.

In a fully_decentralized_network you can meet new people and_moderate your own
view of_the_world without putting any_burden on others to adapt_to what you
want. Moderation can be_done with_a system_like this:
[https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-
moderati...](https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderation-
system-for-the-decentralized-web/)

~~~
rglullis
Sorry, either you don't understand the concept of federation, or_you are
bullshitting me.

I can run a_single-user Mastodon instance and_follow people_from_any other
instance. They_can_follow me_as well. I can send emails from_my personal
server_to anyone on gmail, and vice-versa.

Where_do I need to_"attract_other users" to my instance? It's_quite the
opposite!

~~~
TimJRobinson
I thought you meant similar_to hosting a forum or_Lemmy_like_site.

