Re: [Social-discuss] distributed social networks

[marc]

quoting carlo freely, probably messily =)


> Teddks was the man who convinced
> me that federation was a dead horse. Now we are dealing
> with dead elephants as an alternative to it. Progress!
> (...)
> How can anything that goes onto the blockchain scale up?

Well, i don't know, that was why i was asking.. since are very visible 
developed techs,
perhaps holochain, and that mike s miller approach bring something new 
there. idk.



> Eight years ago there was this "gnu social p2p" vs
> "gnu social" dispute.

well, i hope to help re-open this enterprise project, why not at gnu? 
makes sense to try. or let's try a bunch of us further something really 
well based-done.

i agree that blockchain has shadened the brighter p2p is, and this 
worries me, as you see, i do phrasing mistakes with that.


> Reinventing Bitmessage?

i forgot to mention zeronet.io, that uses bitmessage, since it says it 
also uses blockchain tech, would you dislike it as a code base, let's 
say for a mory groupy fakebook-like project?


> You would want all users to publish how long they have been
> watching some crp and prove it by some cryptographic means?
> Just when I thought we had enough surveillance economy.

hey wait there :), i said "users who agree to donate their (even inner 
interactivity) data".
i.e. i want to donate even my mouse clicking pretending..

why should i be denied to contribute this type of data to the most or 
some other refined machines if i want to?
forced privacy is forcing, and despite for passwords or such security 
things,
appeals to privacy have to be recomendations, or otherwise can be 
security or integrity patronizing fallacies

in this sense, as a PoC, i imagine a wysiwyg like editor that let's you 
offuscate for robots some pieces of some text from some type of content

btw. staying watching something for more than 5 seconds, could be a easy 
way to moderate anything.




> Has anyone told you blockchain people that basic income
> models over ethereum fail because the super-rich needed
> to finance it will simply not take part?

this was coming from the proof-of-presence issue, but has gone into 
another, very interesting, point, which my reply is:

any community, including the states, can start a basic income

we do not need the super-rich to help us in this, we can do it much much 
easier than we think, but we are too lazy. it is easier to stay in our 
confort areas (including complaining about the super rich only, which is 
not your case carlo)



> Maybe it takes a certain lack of rationality to
> successfully become a fan of blockchains.

"money" is out there as a virus we need to convive with that is testing 
us...




-------

hack on!