Web3, brought to you by the same capitalist shitfuckery that gave you Web 2.0. Isn't the fediverse technically considered web3 because it is decentralized?

@SuperDicq Right-libertarian blockchain and cryptocurrency get-rich-quick schemes.

@SuperDicq @aral cryptospastics say fediverse isnt truly decentralised cuz admins control the instances and it shouldnt be controlled by anything at any time but tbh these guys are fucking retards
@chinkies @SuperDicq @aral nothing stops anyone from selfhosting a single user instance. If anything, the larger issue of ActivityPub ecosystem is the reliance on DNS - and it has already been proven to be a weak point allowing for external censorship and silencing several times.
@takao @SuperDicq @aral sure lets get around the DNS problem but when I heard someone actually say admins shouldnt exist I just had to laugh

@takao @SuperDicq @chinkies Self hosting a single-person instance of a system designed to handle hundreds of thousand of people is like building a city block to live in by yourself. Sure, you can do it, but it is a lot of infrastructure to maintain. And it’s very different from self-hosting a system designed for just one person; your own little cottage, if you will. The latter is what we’re exploring with the Small Web :) Yeah of course we shouldn't expect everyone to host their own single user instance. There's plenty of instances with open registration that you can sign up to.

@SuperDicq @takao @chinkies We should expect everyone to have their own instance, we just need to build the tech that way to make it easy to do. In a system that affords privacy, your instance = an extension of your self. Somebody else’s instance = not having full ownership and control of your extended self (and thus, by extension – uhum – your self).

Again, though, that’s where federated systems and peer to peer ones like the Small Web differ. I’m happy the former exist as a stopgap. It's a bad assumption to make that everyone wants to have this kind of control. A lot of people want someone else to be in control in what stuff they see and filter it, which can be convenient.

@SuperDicq @takao @chinkies We have a term to describe when one person is in control of another: it’s called conservatorship. It might be necessary in extreme cases where an individual is incapacitated but I’d rather not make it the default as that would mean the wholesale surrender of our personhood in the digital network age. I don't think it's like conservatorship at all.

Putting someone else in charge of something is not the same as being subjugated to someone else's reign or being incapacitated.

At any point you're free to leave and do it yourself, or replace whoever is doing this for you. True freedom is being able to choose to do it yourself or asking someone else to do it for you, not forcing everyone to do it by themself.

The same misunderstanding exists in the free software world. A lot of people don't understand why free software is important for non-programmers. You often see statements like "I'm not a programmer so why should I care about being able to read and modify the source code?". The reason why you should care is because you can ask or hire someone else to do it for you.

@SuperDicq @takao @chinkies Right, the goal isn’t to force anyone to do anything. However, if you want to have ownership and control of your self, you will be able to using the tools we’re making. And you’ll be able to do so easily (if we’re successful). If you don’t want to, no one is going to shove anything down your throat :)

Basically, the difference is this: do you want to have private thoughts or are you happy sharing every thought with at least someone else? It comes down to personhood. Yeah basically. A lot of people are happy that I'm providing fedi instances for them. I'm filtering out nasty stuff like spam and illegal stuff so their timelines can stay clean.

@SuperDicq @aral I'm happy to delegate the task of maintaining my Mastodon instance, as I am delegating the task of maintaining my email domain. I'm not the only user; it's like renting a small block of apartments for friends and family. I'm the one paying the rent, but I don't want to worry about plumbing and roof repairs.

@SuperDicq @aral no, web3 is supposed to be censorship resistant, like bittorrent for the web. Freenet kinda fits into this model. But that's only for static content, so if you add a decentralized database (blockchain) you get the full web3 stack of unstoppable applications. Why is blockchain necessary in this model? I think the fediverse or even email is a good example of decentralized and censorship resistant communication.

@SuperDicq @xorman It’s not necessary. But that’s what “web3” (the brand) is about.

@SuperDicq @aral The blockchain is not necessary if you don't need provable timestamping. The federation model is not as censorship resistant as a distributed p2p model where the data is replicated amongst nodes and the failure or one node does not affect data availability. Think bittorent vs. HTTP If a fediverse instance goes down all of the data of that instance is still available on the instances it has federated with.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!