[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

"People do not want to operate their own servers" ... oh, how much I hate that argument. There are so many baseless assumptions in there. What does "operate a server" even mean? Is "loading a web page that accepts WebRTC requests" "operating a server"?

Obviously, what people mean is some sort of "people don't want to learn how to manage the installation and configuration of a linux distribution on the command line". Which probably is true--but also completely irrelevant.

Arguably, home routers are servers. People routinely "operate" home routers. So, people routinely operate their own servers.

Yes, usability might need to be improved. But obviously, the first generations of new technological ideas are built by and for enthusiasts and thus require a bit more motivation to get started. There is absolutely no reason to think that that is therefore an inherent property of the idea itself.

[csydas]

> Arguably, home routers are servers. People routinely "operate" home routers. So, people routinely operate their own servers.

This is quite arguable, as most people plug in a router, or even more commonly, have Comcast do it for them.

And you are closer to the mark with the "configuration of a linux distribution on the command line" bit. Look at adoption rates for GPG and some of the blog posts/comments on it. [1],[2]

If Security Professionals are giving up on what is not a wholly complex system in general, it sets a fairly clear bar on what is acceptable anymore and what isn't. Apple's Messages, Signal, Telegram, any of these chats with the built-in End to End Encryption is what is mostly needs to be; you just open the application, and the work is done. Of course, this means in some way centralization and trusting a monolithic org to play nice.

Currently a lot of the social media alternatives fall victim either to the lack of traction or the complexity of participation, and adhering to the privacy and security ideals sometimes requries complexity.

Don't get me wrong, I'm firmly in the RTFM camp and protect your privacy by whatever means, but that means concessions, and often concessions people don't want to give. Malware would be cut in half if people just ran NoScript, but that would break a lot and require some knowledge of what happens on the pages they go to. People would probably be happier with alternative social media platforms that are more communication focused, but that requires sometimes more configuration than they're willing to bother with.

The ideas proposed by alternative systems typically aren't that new to begin with and have been around for ages - when complexity is a requirement for the technology, there isn't really a post-enthusiast era. Many tech leaps were very simple on release; consider BitTorrent. Get client, download torrent, a file appears. It was pretty magical, and new.

[1] - https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/12/giving_up_on_... (comment from Schneier on [2], agreeing) [2] - https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/op-ed...

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> This is quite arguable, as most people plug in a router, or even more commonly, have Comcast do it for them.

And yet, they are not limited to communicating with other comcast customers.

Whether that would be the best model for social networks, I don't know, but I think it is important to recognize that you do not need every individual to build their "server" from scratch to achieve some meaningful benefits of decentralization. If comcast doesn't like you, they cannot cut you off from the internet, and that is already a pretty big advantage over walled gardens.

[Alex3917]

> This is quite arguable, as most people plug in a router, or even more commonly, have Comcast do it for them.

So replace router with Apple TV.

[gwenzek]

Totally agree with you. I think a successful decentralized network should come with pre-configured Raspberry Pi that would act as a web server hosting the user pictures, contacts… And maybe a bit of friends data for backup.

[ashark]

1) What happens when it breaks? If you plug in a new one, will it auto-restore? Where from? 2) Updates. How do they happen, who does them? What about when they go wrong? What about 5 years in when there are three models of the device (or way, way more if it's not proprietary) and an update goes out that bricks one?

Difficulty: the answers to the above must leave you with a product easy to use and reliable enough to compete with doing approximately zero work to use and maintain a Facebook account. Plus it needs to offer at least as many features.

I've for some time wanted a kind of private swarm-storage product (probably using IPFS, I guess, for lack of alternatives) that lets you plug in a new node at a friend/relative's house with a few TB of storage, put in the credentials (keys, bootstrap node[s]) for the swarm, and has it intelligently back up some amount of content from the network such that everything has at least X copies (3, say) while making all the rest available (that's where IPFS helps) on request, with some interface for adding content to the swarm from any node. The above problems have kept me from attempting even this task. A social network would be even harder.

[ineptech]

s/Raspberry Pi/EC2 instance/

A world where it's common for people to run their own server opens up exciting possibilities (just as a world where everyone carries a computer in their pocket has), but I don't think actual physical servers is going to get us there.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

Though I guess the important point is that the technology shouldn't care--if you want, you can put your own hardware in your basement, or host it with some local cooperative, or with amazon, whatever you prefer.

[dwringer]

I think if the argument "people do not want to operate their own servers" were true, then ISP's like Comcast wouldn't have clauses prohibiting users from doing it, or filters in place blocking access to common service ports like 22 and 80 from the outside.

[always_good]

I don't follow. We're talking about whether enough people are willing to jump through the hoops to get decentralized social networking to work.

Pointing out that some people run servers isn't much of a distinction. Some people also use decentralized social networks. But virtually nobody.