We’ve had enough of digital monopolies and surveillance capitalism. We want an alternative world that works for everyone, just like the original intention of the web and net.
We seek a world of open platforms and protocols with real choices of applications and services for people. We care about privacy, transparency and autonomy. Our tools and organisations should fundamentally be accountable and resilient.
I was (am) on that list, my best take on what happened was none of that tech solved real problems better than centralizing did :/ I believe that's changing though and the next generation of challenges will be better served by decentralized solutions. Jer > On Dec 30, 2013, at 7:36 AM, Francis Irving <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > This archive is pretty amazing. > > e.g. someone back in 2000 looking at the stack (in those days, > Gnutella, WorldOS, FreeNet) and trying to work out what the structure > should be, just like I often think about now. > http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/decentralization/conversations/messages/26 > > e.g. a latish post in 2007, someone asking "why hasn't any of this > worked, it's all got more centralized", to which the sophisticated > answer is that we need a new type of open peer-based corporation... > http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/decentralization/conversations/messages/6908 > > The take home from my brief skim is that the forces of capitalism > creating revenue flow are what won it for centralization. Open stuff > is only used tactically (e.g. Google/Apple using the web to beat > Microsoft). > > So yeah, new initiatives should pay a *lot* of head for that. The time > has gone for naive geeks hoping good tech will "go viral". > > It needs money to spend on sales teams and TV adverts... > > Anyone here on that list, and have any conclusions about what we > should learn about it and the whole 2000-2010 period? > > Francis > >> On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 06:51:32PM -0500, P S wrote: >> For those who haven't seen the now-dormant list, it was active in early part of the 00 decade. >> >> 7000+ messages on P2P and decentralization: >> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/decentralization/conversations/messages > > -- > Do *you* have an awesome idea you never quite manage to do? > http://www.awesomefoundation.org/en/chapters/liverpool/
This Yahoo group can be a useful measure of relative progress. It raised some pretty good questions in this thread already: does commercial infrastructure inherently benefit from centralised models? Does there need to be a new type of "open peer-based corporation”? Or rather, how important is it to find alternative funding models in order to produce work of similar quality than the centralised models one intends to replace? To me it also evoked a more general question — why do we believe that current attempts at decentralised infrastructure will fare any better than the previous generation? What knowledge have we gained since then? I like the enthusiasm expressed in this thread, but it would be good to hear some stronger answers than the ones given so far in order to avoid a similar (seemingly fruitless) fate. On 31 Dec 2013, at 02:11, Louise Ishka <email@example.com> wrote: > I agree with Jer. > > We are seeing P2P tech turn up in unexpected places > https://blog.twitter.com/2010/murder-fast-datacenter-code-deploys-using-bittorrent I think that’s an unfortunate example: that’s a decentralised technology used for better centralisation (where a centralised service is large enough to be decentralised internally.) I.e., it does not avoid the reliance on centralised end-user services at all. On 31 Dec 2013, at 02:29, Feross Aboukhadijeh <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > More P2P in unexpected places :) https://peercdn.com/ Now acquired by Yahoo. That speaks to their funding model (cf my questions above.) On 31 Dec 2013, at 01:12, Jeremie Miller <email@example.com> wrote: > my best take on what happened was none of that tech solved real problems better than centralizing did :/ > > I believe that's changing though and the next generation of challenges will be better served by decentralized solutions. What new challenges in particular do you have in mind? m.