Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jwalgenbach 1642 days ago
The internet was meant to be used by people who knew how the internet worked. Herein lies the problem.

This might sound like gatekeeping, and maybe it is. When these systems were designed, they were not designed to be used by everyone. They were not designed to be commodities that are bought and sold, with the most valuable trinket available being the attention of the user. But this is where we are.

Few are capable of running their own _anything_ on the internet, and even fewer have the desire to do it, because if you run it well for yourself (as an individual), someone else will want you to do it for them because you are already doing it, so it's not that much more work, right? \s

Decentralization limits monetization of anything, so that is going to be a non-starter for investment of resources. Unless you are trying to have your infrastructure survive a nuclear war, no one is going to provide the means to build anything big unless you can sell it or the users of it.

The notion that anything really works on the internet with the assumptions that were made in the 70s and 80s, and the realization that what holds most of it together is the blood and sweat of ops, duck tape, and fever dreams consistently astonishes me. In the not so distant past, someone paid me to write them a custom FTP server. In the 21st century. It's like being asked to whittle an engine block out of a tree.

1 comments

> Decentralization limits monetization of anything, so that is going to be a non-starter for investment of resources. Unless you are trying to have your infrastructure survive a nuclear war, no one is going to provide the means to build anything big unless you can sell it or the users of it.

I'll go further: centralised systems can emulate decentralised systems, but not vice versa. Thus, ultimately, the only USP of a decentralised system is that it is decentralised for the sake of being decentralised, and nobody cares much about that. Centralisation is inevitable, and wins out every time.

They can pretend to be decentralized, but they can't emulate the lack of centralized authority.

People certainly care enough about centralization once it's consistently abused in ways that hurt them (which always happens eventually, given enough time). Our existing anti-monopoly laws came about like that.

Signal jumps to mind.

Plus I don't see much evidence people care. This argument reminds me of Accelerationism, which doesn't seem to work either.

People start to care on the edges (e.g. social networks), but there simply isn't enough abuse wrt email yet for opposition to register.