|
Top-level
 Let's consider what decentralization is in the context of social media, and why it matters. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok are owned by companies. They control who connects with who. They control what you see. If you use Twitter (for example) it is difficult to talk to someone *outside* Twitter *from* Twitter. This is the core problem with modern social media. Decentralization removes control of social media from any company, government, or entity. 14 comments
Now let's compare crypto "decentralized" social networks with the Fediverse. Which central entity controls the Fediverse? Nobody. Sure, the @w3c validates a spec, but that's nothing more than a recommendation of a standard. Yeah, @Gargron runs the Mastodon non-profit, but that's just one very popular app. Further, you neither have to use ActivityPub nor Mastodon to participate on the Fediverse. No central authority governs the Fediverse. Is the Fediverse's version of decentralization without its problems? Nope! And we recently saw some real flaws with the announced shutdown of mastodon.lol, with tens of thousands of people needing to migrate their accounts elsewhere. Some people argue that identity should be independent from the instances that host their accounts. I agree. But people are already working on that problem, and I have no doubt that nomadic identity will eventually happen for most people on the Fediverse. I'm not even trying to say, "Hey! The Fediverse is the *only* way to do decentralized social media". Because it's not. I personally think Secure Scuttlebutt is a pretty kickass implementation of a decentralized social network. It decentralizes social media in ways that are vastly different from the Fediverse. For one thing, you don't even need any instances. Which is pretty great! What I'm getting at here is most of these crypto "social networks" are terrible as decentralized social networks because the DAO is too much of a factor. On a true decentralized social network, the input of a centralized entity or governing authority shouldn't matter regarding whether or not I can use it. On the same token, there should be freedom of association. People should be able to decide whether or not they want to talk to me. That's why decentralization matters! Next time a crypto bro tells me about their so-called "decentralized" social network, I'm going to ask them, "Is it governed by a DAO?" If they tell me it is -- and most of them will be happy to tell you it is because they see it as a feature, not a bug -- I'll simply tell them, "Okay, so it's not decentralized." That will be that, and I will continue building out real decentralization for social media. @atomicpoet Interested in whether you can explain in toot-length how real decentralization for social media ought to work.  @atomicpoet @hrheingold How it /ought/ to work is also a difficult question because that's more asking for a judgement call than for anything technical. It far more a question of what tradeoffs you prefer. @atomicpoet Yep. If the only way to help govern is by having a bunch of money (tokens) than it's just rich people controlling the network to further enrich themselves.  @atomicpoet y'know, there is value in having a literally codified "entity" take over from the humans when there are trust issues. And the DAO "entity" is decentralized. But at the level of individual sovereignty, and a new user's experience, you're right it's essentially the same ol'. I appreciate blockchain for being a back-end option, personally, but there is an impedence mismatch with the fediverse. @atomicpoet Unless the DAO is supporting people to host the social media protocol/ servers themselves (which I’ve never seen lol), it really isn’t properly decentralized. Also, the Fediverse exists, so why not do something crypto+Activity Pub if you NEED crypto in your life? …🤷🏻♂️ @atomicpoet |
Gregory's Server
In the context of crypto, what is a DAO?
DAO = Decentralized Autonomous Organization.
Which is a bullshit term because anyone can argue that companies and governments are also "decentralized" and "autonomous" in the sense they are corporeal. That is, made up of several stakeholders.
But if that entity has decision-making power over a social network, that is not decentralization. That's centralization.
This is why so many crypto "social networks" are not actually decentralized.