Login

Redecentralize

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.

Home

Parent
Eric Mill [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] decentralization Yahoo group 2013-12-30 19:48:09 (5 years 9 mons 15 days 00:07:00 ago)
> Open stuff is only used tactically (e.g. Google/Apple using the web to beat Microsoft).

That doesn't sound like a bad thing at all. We want an open, decentralized web because it's useful for the greatest number -- any corporation which is able to take a long term view (and Google has traditionally been pretty good at that) should find a way to make it useful to them. But closed is helpful as a short term club.

I think you can draw a pretty clear line between Google being *forced* to take a short term view -- as they watch indexable content disappear into closed networks, and fewer people wanting/needing to search as things get put in front of them via their networks -- and their deprioritization of open web technologies. See Eric Schmidt's display of righteous anger at Twitter blocking Google from indexing tweets.

-- Eric


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Francis Irving <francis@flourish.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/



--
: