Every now and then, the “why hasn’t decentralized social networking succeeded” discussion pops back up. And inevitably, that motivates somebody who thinks they can do better. They proceed to design a new set of decentralized networking protocols, write lots of code, and get early adopters to enthusiastically adopt the New Thing. Which then, inevitably, never grows beyond a certain size.
Rinse and repeat.
…
So: decentralized social networking will never amount to anything unless it solves at least one real, burning problem much better than the centralized alternatives.
Bonus points: find a problem to solve that is easy to solve in a decentralized fashion, and hard, or impossible to solve in a centralized fashion. (Just like Twitter trending, just reverse.)
…
P.S: What I discuss here is, of course, nothing else than Geoff Moore’s famous “Crossing the Chasm“…
I think the question is a great one, and specifically this formulation:
find a problem to solve that is easy to solve in a decentralized fashion, and hard, or impossible to solve in a centralized fashion.
Here are two answers I would have off the top of my head (one natural and one needing building)
Ecosystem
Centralized services cannot offer the same level of freedom to build. The obvious example to this is the Internet vs AOL/Prodigy/etc… I think in some ways this is a difference between Mastodon and DSNP. DSNP is designed to support one using having multiple clients. Separating out the data layer from the client layer. Clients can build on the data layer and can build new native data types within the data layer. Preventing data fragmentation is of course an issue, but I think it is a manageable problem. Also kickstarting a healthy ecosystem is difficult. But think of all the ideas that Twitter (or others) have cut off access and erased, not to mention all the stuff that we never got to see because it was never built due to limits in the first place.
Moderation
Moderation is a large problem that (if someone can find a solution) could be easier and better in decentralized social. I think it is becoming clear that centralized moderation is only really good at one thing, moderating the wrong things for the wrong people. (Not at all to downplay the hard work of the thousands who do the grunt work.) I’m not saying they are not trying, I just think it is impossible to do. One person’s art is another’s erotica. Nothing can make everyone happy. Decentralized moderation may not become a thing, but choice between clients and edge moderation can. (True Twitter could open up all its data and allow moderation to any client, but those offerings are always tied to Twitter’s best interests and companies have learned to be wary of such offerings in the long-term. See ecosystem).
What do you think? Would you agree that these are some of the advantages (or could be made into advantages) of decentralization? Anyone else want to add in their ideas?
I’m just trying understand what you all are trying to accomplish here. If I were to embark on a project like this, I would start with “what’s the unique value we can provide to the user”, try to articulate it in a few sentences so that >50% of the population can understand it (and then test it with a random selection of consumers). And only from there, try to figure out what the tech stack needs to look like to deliver that unique value to the user.
Instead, this project seems to have started with block chain, and it’s trying to find its unique value add. So as a result, so far, I’m mostly puzzled. I mean, once you built everything that you currently foresee building around this protocol, the code is ready to go, why does Alice tell Bob that he absolutely, positively, has to stop using Snapchat today and use this instead? Because it does …?
@j12t Perhaps I misunderstand. I don’t expect Alice to tell Bob to use DSNP. DSNP is not an app. Applications build on top of DSNP. So Snapchat could (albeit currently unlikely) start using DSNP. That’s the power of an ecosystem.
Now we have ideas about what could be built on top of DSNP, but I think the real interest is to not have one application dominate and apps targeting a variety of verticals is best.
Have you had a chance to read over the Whitepaper? It does a better job explaining the goals than the spec does, even if the spec is a more evolved implementation of the ideas.
Are y’all aware that there are some crypto companies in the same space . eg secretum (I alerted them too) They are using wallets as identifiers. This man is asking you some very good questions. Co-creating Web 3 ??? sounds too idealistic for the average internet user. We were in a different world when FB and others started with their grand vision…people didn’t have the vanity access eg my space. This world now runs on financial incentives. (like it or not…I don’t.) So the question is “How will you give people incentives to use your platform?” I feel without it …you will fail…unless you get some huge grants which will present another problem. Another question…how will you interface with what people are calling the “metaverse”.
to apply this here.