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.
Had one other thought I wanted to add about free economics:
I have this intuition that the pathologies caused by free “as in beer” online are somehow a special case of what economist John Maynard Keynes called the “paradox of thrift.”
The simple paradox of thrift goes like this:
For you to get paid, someone else must spend. That’s because all transactions must have two parties. This results in a paradox. If everyone is thrifty (as often happens during downturns), paradoxically nobody can save because nobody is getting paid. For you to save, someone else must not.
It’s a classic sor t of emergent pathology as often seen in complex systems.
The inverse works too. Individually, spending money makes you poorer. But if we *all* spend money, we get (paradoxically) richer. We create a lot more economic activity which creates many more opportunities and tends to inflate things like wages in the long term.
So paying for stuff online makes you poorer, but if nobody pays for anything online we get pathologies like the surveillance-driven centralized silo Internet. We all get poorer. Seems at least analogous to me. If we all paid for decentralized systems, we’d get richer — both in terms of freedom and privacy and in terms of opportunities for new technology businesses.
On Apr 3, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Adam Ierymenko <adam.ierymenko @zerotier.com> wrote:
I LOVE the term “grass computing!”
This slide deck is from a talk I gave at a conference called border:none in Nuremberg, Germany last year:
It goes into a bit of the history of how we got here and why everything’s become so centralized. I think economics is only part of the story.
As far as funding goes, three of the projects you list are funded to some level by angel or venture capital: BitTorrent, ZeroTier, and Sandstorm. I think OwnCloud, which you didn’t mention, is funded too.
Some capital is going into this stuff, but it’s a very tiny trickle compared to what gets invested in centralized systems. That’s not because of any ideological agenda. It’s because centralized systems usually get more users (due to better user experience mostly) and make more money (for multiple reasons).
The only alternative would be to have government fund all this stuff. I’m not sure how folks elsewhere feel, but I don’t trust the U.S. Federal Government more than I trust VC firms.
I do wonder if the tide is turning. Centralized/decentralized is basically the old mainframe/micro cycle of reincarnation. First we used dumb terms to access mainframes. Then we use d PCs. Then the Internet has made it easy to access really big mainframes in “the cloud,” which is really just marketroid rebranding of mainframe computing. (All the tech, like containers and VMs, is old mainframe tech reimagined/rebooted.) Now we’re starting to see some efforts to push things back toward personal computing again, albeit with a different more networked model from the old grey box PC.
There are aspects of the cloud that aren’t going away though. At central data centers it’s possible to achieve economies of scale that can make things like storage and compute cheaper in bulk there than they are in a distributed system. They can also be more reliable. I host many things in the cloud because it almost never goes offline, while my home Internet connection is much more flaky.
What we really need — and many many people including you have hit on this — is to find ways to change the technical power dynamic. The cloud should be the slave and the PC should be the master. The cloud should be encrypted “zero knowledge” backup, storage, and support infrastructure for personal computing.
The way Apple uses cloud is close to what we ought to be trying to build in the more free/open software community. Apple uses cloud exactly this way— as dumb storage and support for rich endpoint devices. They just don’t do the open or encrypted / zero-knowledge part, as they have no incentive to do so.
As far as economics go, I’ve started to believe increasingly that free “as in beer” is in fact the enemy of free “as in freedom.” This will be true until and unless we actually make it to some kind of post-scarcity society where production can truly be decoupled from powerful economic forces.
I’m not saying we need toll booths everywhere, but we need them somewhere. There must be some mechanism for open and free “as in freedom” projects to finance themselves. Otherwise they’re at a permanent disadvantage.
Free “as in beer” also encourages the development of dishonest pseudo-free business models, such as the use of surveillance to monetize free services. In the late 90s, many services and online media outlets tried a paid or freemium model. People mostly refused to pay. Meanwhile the services that opted for pseudo-free models built around stealth monetization strategies like surveillance grew exponentially and took over the market.
This is nothing all that new. Media has always been a deflationary race to the bottom, giving advertisers and astroturfers/propagandists the most power over what gets made and shown. The difference now is that now the media is bidirectional: it watches you as you consume it. In the past the cost of free was ads/propaganda slipped into your news and entertainment. Now the cost of free is total surveillance.
On Apr 2, 2015, at 10:32 PM, Brian Cloutier <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Thanks for posting! I enjoyed the link to Telekommunism, "venture communism" is a fun phrase.
Your post reminds me of another sent to this list, I want to believe.
You focus on funding, it's easier to monetize centralized services so more venture capital is poured into creating them. The other post mentions technical difficulties, distributed systems are hard and getting them to work even when you trust each piece to act in good faith is difficult. Writing a distributed system which is also a good product is harder than simply writing a good product; centralization helps you outcompete.
How might we get around these pretty substantial market forces?
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:01 PM mempko <email@example.com> wrote:
I thought you guys/gals would like this post I made.
Let me know what you think and any corrections I can make.
I personally enjoy both the technical and the social/political issues of
decentralized software and I hope some of you do too.