upvote
All you've said here is that you (and many others) have shown in the past that they've valued convenience and rapid feature development over freedom and stability.

That is good to understand, but when that trade starts causing issues, it is important to remember that there was a trade made.

We aren't as stuck as we think we are, unless we decide not to reevaluate our past choices.

reply
Yes, essentially everyone on the planet was willing to trade some freedom for chats that work on mobile or could send images.

Matrix has shown how incredibly difficult it is to make a modern service in a decentralised way. Requirements like preventing spam become immensely difficult.

reply
Preventing spam may not be possible for much longer without verified IDs considering how advanced ai agents are.

Do any fully trustable ID validation services exist? Ones that verifiably never store your ID but just a validity status for a given ID on a blockchain?

reply
Assuming you want ID verification, why would you need a blockchain? Your identity is deeply linked to who you are and we have identity documents and trusted entities to provide them. These entities can absolutely act as a third-party to verify who you are. This can happen with several different parameters: whether your identity is provided to the site you are using, whether the site your are using is known to your identity provider, whether identities across sites are identical or only linkable by the trusted party. But in all those examples (that are currently implemented by some countries), blockchain is not a requirement.

Assuming you don't want actual ID verification, the choices are even larger but with different trade-offs.

reply
Phone numbers + phone number country + account age + behavior can be used to build a trust score. It might not be bulletproof but it cuts down spam enough for now.

Imagine a messaging app for example, a 1 month old account with a Nigerian phone number cold DMs an account in Australia. The likelihood of this being spam/abuse is extremely high. Vs a 5 year old account that mostly messages mutual contacts cold DMing an account in their own country.

In many countries, phone numbers are a proxy for ID and are difficult to get without having a local ID. The countries which have not secured their phone number system will be less trusted by spam filters.

reply
Nobody said how hyper the HT in HTML and HTTP had to be, so here we are.

Oh, TLS also. Encrypted connections over HTTP are trivial.

Arguably this has created far more freedom by making encrypted network traffic default and free. Convenience is also freedom when it comes to accessibility.

reply
There's also this annoying flash perception that wins. As the big companies abandoned XMPP, less people considered it.

It's pretty good today! Lots of things improved a lot! Some big clean ups!

But think of how much better it would be if people stayed woke, if they didn't just throw up their hands call defeat & say it was never going to work. If there wasn't such a bleak rot in our soul, if we could try to play slightly longer games, I think in the medium & long run it would be much much better for us all.

It feels so easy to spread sedition, to project these fatalisms that only big dumb lumbering central systems win. I'm so tired of this bleakness, this snap to convenience as the only perceived possible win. Let the prophecy self fulfill no more, let us arise from this torpor. A little Ubuntu would be ao good for us all. Ubuntu the old saying (that the distro was inspired by) goes: "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together"

reply
[dead]
reply
Put another way, the services need us more than we need them.
reply
Short-term yes, long-term it is often the other way around. In many cases, abandoning an open standard for a closed, centralised solution is surrendering to future enshittification for short-lived instant gratification.
reply
Is Mastodon really hard to use for most people? I guess there's some very specific scenarios it may be.

Also the article presents a false dichotomy in my view: protocols need services to be useful to virtually 99.9999% of humans (or at least they do in the architecture we have built since... email?).

Who uses email without relying on servers? Where is your selfhosted email box sitting on if not in a hosting service?

Even IRC relies on servers for people to talk to. I love to experiment with protocols that do not rely on servers - secure scuttlebut? - but even ssb relied on some seed peer that provides a service to initialize the peering

reply
This, by the way, is why Signal isn't federated. Moxie Marlinspike made the same argument.

https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/

reply
Totally understand, I am all for decentralized world too. In reality tho most ppl just choose whatever works fast and ships fast and more production-ready I guess, no drafts. Would be great if the world sees an opposite example, by far centralised approach just worked better
reply
Comparing IRC-the-protocol to Discord-the-platform is silly. Apples-to-oranges etc
reply
I can't tell if you are replying to the comment or the post because the topic of TFA is literally comparing protocols and services. Discord and IRC are both mentioned in the post.
reply