Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet
On 3/21/18 12:32 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, email@example.com wrote:
My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies.
Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of
conversation, only to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a
transnational conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model,
although web sites that let you leave messages come pretty close.
What I don't like are those web sites that make you log in through
Facebook in order to post. Since I don't have a Facebook account and
never will, such sites will have to do without my pearls of wisdom.
Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and it's
still going strong in some quarters.
*YES!* I use email and USENET only.
I attempted Facebook years ago. I set it up two have some family and
one friend set up as "friends". I was careful to *NOT* to specify
anything about where I lived. I was immediately spammed by advertising
geographically associated with my "friends". The current fiasco with
data mining private information says I was right.
Add some global identity & reputation management, and the ability
to set up lots of small newsgroups - and we'd have one hell of a
Free market does a pretty good job. I'm currently subscribed to >20
tech oriented mailing lists with few problems.
I was thinking of STANDARDS for identity management across USENET sites,
coupled with some access controls. Right now, one key limit of USENET
(well, NNTP) is that there are lots of ways of spoofing identity on
posts, and no way to really limit access on a per-group basis. Email
lists provide a lot more control. So does FaceBook.
(FYI: I currently HOST 20+ email lists - mostly community groups. I'd
love to run them as USENET groups, but - can't control membership.)
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra