Slashdot Mirror
Why We Need To Decentralize The Web (postlight.com)
One could argue that the web is already decentralized. But with major websites like Google and Facebook, it's increasingly harder to stay decentralized. Paul Ford writes: There's a good research report that was just published. It's called "Defending Internet Freedom through Decentralization: Back to the Future?" (That's a PDF so watch yourself.) What is decentralization? Take the web: Anyone can set up a web page and link to any other web page. That's decentralized. Anyone can make a search engine to find those web pages. That's centralized. The search engine can add blogging. That's Google + Blogger. Now it's both a publisher and a search engine. It has more power. Decentralized things are harder to manage and use. Centralized things end up easy to use and make money for relatively few people. The web is inherently decentralized, which has made it much easier for large companies to create large, centralized platforms. It's a paradox and very thorny. God bless the authors of this paper, they don't make you wade through. They pop up with recommendations by page 5: "We advise investors -- whether motivated by civic or fiscal concerns -- both to watch this space closely and to advocate for the pre-conditions that we believe will enable a healthier marketplace for online publishing. A precondition for the success of these distributed platforms is a shift towards user-controlled data, the ownership of a user's social graph and her intellectual property created online. It will be difficult for new platforms to develop without widespread support for efforts towards data portability and rights over data ownership. Data portability also enables new models for aggregation. Small, thoughtfully curated news sources will be made more powerful by having access to the user data currently locked inside mega-platforms, but right now, federated clients that interoperate between different platforms are borderline illegal -- fixing this may require adjusting overly broad regulations, like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
"We believe that these user-controlled data rights are essential to develop a more robust market and allow new efforts to emerge from existing communities. Though individual users might not directly care about or understand these rights, their adoption will free developers to create applications that leverage users' existing data, so that they can provide compelling, interesting new experiences, even with a small user base."
"We believe that these user-controlled data rights are essential to develop a more robust market and allow new efforts to emerge from existing communities. Though individual users might not directly care about or understand these rights, their adoption will free developers to create applications that leverage users' existing data, so that they can provide compelling, interesting new experiences, even with a small user base."
I have a rant about this from 2012:
Yeah, the web has changed in my day.
It used to be full of homepages. Personal sites. If you searched for something (and search sucked in those days, trust me), more often then not you found a website that someone had made on their own time and covered whatever subjects they wanted it to. And not a blurb on some reviewing site. No, the whole damn site was theirs. It depended on what you were searching for, but it ran the gamut of important to trivial. From fan-reviews of books, to people raging about how awesome the newest game was. But also important stuff like the effects of the fall of the Berlin wall the the social entanglement the web is posing for Muslim women.
Most of these pages were hosted for free. And I believe that's where I came in. Way past the endless September. Before the 90's putting something on the web required you to run your own server. Or have access to one in college or something. In the 90's, geocities and all lowered the bar for the internet and hosting was now free, with a small string attached.
Now a days things have changed. People no longer have their own servers or websites, that's too much work. The bar has been lowered even further. You no longer need to know HTML or even what a tag is. In the web 2.0 world, everyone can simply upload what they want onto websites. Facebook, flicker, tumbler, wordpress, and all. Those places have done the heavy lifting of making the webpage and all people have to do is insert the content. Web pages that take in people's information, pictures, links, knowledge and all that crap and host it for everyone else to see. When you google something now, the first result is usually wikipedia. Because wikipedia is where people upload their knowledge.
And that's it's own separate rant on the importance of wikipedia.
But anyway, today's internet is more centralized. If you want to know about a movie, you don't find someone's website with a page dedicated to ranting about the movie, you go to imdb and find facts and reviews uploaded by people. You see someone's rant that was upmodded by other. The one that got downmodded is buried and the truly insightful one got censored. (and then you go torrent it, but that's not the web).
This is a slightly disturbing consolidation of the web. Whereas there was once an ever-increasing amount of participation on the web, the meaningful web is now a handful of sites dedicated to their particular topic. It's arguably more structured, but it's taking the power from the people and putting it in the hands of the companies that own the sites. It's arguably the natural course for these sorts of things. Something new came along. Everyone competed, and then a few, very few, people won, ate up the losers, and the consolidation left one or two victors. Which is why everyone was desperate to become to defacto standard. Fighting that process is hopeless. But the natural way things work is kinda crap. It leads to monopolies, and abuse of power. I guess I'm simply unsure about the nature of our gatekeepers.
And Jesus christ. Think about email. A wonderfully decentralized system where it's a no-holds-bar capitalist survival of the fittest right? We SSSHEEEEEIIITT boy! There's Gmail, yahoo, and maybe hotmail. There are also corporate mail servers. But by and far, for most of the populace, email has consolidated. When the fuck did THAT happen and how did I not notice?
The web is a decentralized because it sits atop of the tcp/ip protocol. Datacenters are scattered all over the place and not in one, central location. Traffic is routed all over the place. Packets still get scattered around the world. It's as decentralized as it's going to physically get. Because that's a physical concept.
But that's not what they're upset about. They decided they don't like that Google and Facebook get a lot of traffic. Too bad. They built useful shit. You make not think so, but millions of other disagree. Search engines made it so we could find those thousands of other pages. FB made it so we could find those friends we're not so good at keeping up with and made it easier to keep up with them.
Unless you're going to show us a way to spread all that traffic out so we don't need a search engine or a facebook, please just be quiet and leave us to get on with life.
This is about large social media platforms and news aggregators rather than the internet or webpages in general. Here's the thing, this problem has already been solved (multiple times) which they admit to in the paper but don't think it's good enough because... not enough people use them and they aren't integrated into the "mega-platforms".
Sure sounds to me like the neo-nazis and their bile spewing kin aren't taking being kicked off twitter/facebook very well.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The internet is a series of connections that require physical wires.
You're wrong. The Internet is a series of tubes.
WTB [sig], PST!!!
Reminds me of an excellent post from an Iranian blogger who was put in prison for six years, from 2008 until an unexpected pardon in 2015. It's worth a read, especially for the younger folks who weren't paying much attention to information theory or internet philosophy prior to the Rise of Social Media.
- https://medium.com/matter/the-web-we-have-to-save-2eb1fe15a426
See also: https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-01-04/after-six-years-prison-iranian-blogger-sees-very-different-internet and http://www.businessinsider.com/iranian-blogger-hossein-derakshan-internet-changes-6-years-filter-bubble-2015-7
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
You seem to misunderstand a basic fact: No one 'owns' the Internet. Not the ISPs, not the individual websites, not Google, not Facebook, not Amazon, not even the backbone providers that provide the highest speeds and highest bandwidth that makes everything routable to everywhere else without it being slowed down to Pony Express speeds; it's already decentralized in the technological sense of the word. The real problem is that humans tend towards things being 'centralized'. All you have to do is offer a popular product or service that no one else quite has the same kind of, and people will make it centralized.
I think they're using the wrong word here; 'decentralized' is not accurate. The word we need to be discussing is 'monopoly'. A few ISPs have a de-facto monopoly on public access to the Internet. Facebook has a de-factor monopoly on (so-called) 'social media'. Google has a de-facto monopoly on Internet searches. Amazon has a de-facto monopoly on Internet retail commerce.
Now, the problem with these de-facto monopolies is this: they are popular with people which is why they're de-facto monopolies. You'd have to make them un-popular to change that. Good luck trying to accomplish that. One way is to offer and alternative they like better. But now you're part of the problem: you have become the de-facto monopoly.
I think the only way to win this game is to not play.