Well IMVHO the best "re-invention" of social web, actually social internet is already there for long, long time, respond to the name of "usenet". No-one "own" it, it's an open and well-know standard so we have various client&servers and we can build other if someone wish. All interested posts can be kept on our personal computers, locally indexed for fully offline search (the best guarantee of censorship-resistance and the simpler and quicker solution), both client and servers are far simpler than modern webapps, ...
That's the social, free, people-centric internet. Reinventing the wheel with complex and less effective solutions is not a good idea IMVHO...
You are not rude at all! Your English, while not 100% perfect, is very close to perfect and still easy to understand. If you want some help understanding where you made mistakes I'm glad to help. I'm always envious of non-English speakers seeming to speak English so well and apologizing for their bad English. Not many people I know (and of course myself) have an easy time learning 2nd and even 3rd languages. I can barely stumble around making conversation in Spanish but I try. I'd never be able to participate on HN if it were a Spanish-speaking website, though.
Thanks! While here is not the right place I always welcome corrections not only about my English but in general, corrections and constructive critics are a fundamental and terribly effective ontological path :-)
A thing these days we somewhat lost unfortunately...
Yes, I was going to say here is not the place so if you are interested make a suggestion or I can leave information on how you can find me (and I'll delete it very quick after you obtain it).
You have to separate out what some techies like vs what the typical web surfer likes. Usenet doesn't have:
1) upvote/downvote and algorithmic ranking -- which is what Digg and Reddit were good at. Typical web surfers like to see the most upvoted stories and most upvoted comments. In contrast on Usenet, it requires a separate newsgroup reader and configuring filters and manual curation. This is too much techie work for regular folks that want a quick dopamine hit of random web content.
2) good spam control. No system is perfect but web forums like reddit and HN have less spam than Usenet.
3) rich text and formatting. The private web-based forums software like vBulletin and PhpBB are good at this. E.g. upload photos, add colorful smiley faces, avatars, etc.
4) no easy way to be "lurker" with Usenet (at least in the 1990s). To retrieve the latest Usenet posts, your newsgroup reader software had to have an "account id". Reddit and HN don't need any sign up just to read posts; just point the browser at a url. Therefore, instant gratification.
Usenet is "worse" in some dimensions when considering multiple dimensions of convenience and usability.
Yes, Usenet is better on some dimensions such as offline reading and non-central ownership. However, I think we can agree that typical web surfers don't care about those attributes.
Well... Spam was not a real thing at the usenet golden age, killfile largely suffice. Today thanks to the experience we have from emails we can easily apply antispam to usenet.
On rich text... Well, while I welcome an org-mode-formatted usenet I still do not see any point in having text formatting capabilities, most of formatted text on the web looks really ugly and it does not help reading. Also if we re-learn to write down text in terms of formatting (for instance knowing that more than 80 columns start to be hard to read, using short URLs etc), with the classic netiquette rules we write down better contents, and perhaps with more attention. Try only to compare readability of modern web-platforms respect of ancient usenet posts in a good client and also compare the "medium quality" of posts. Photos can be a problem often circumvented by base64-encode stuff, fidocad etc, however when you really need to insert an image or video in something you post?
On upvotes, well personally I think gamification in general as a really bad idea and in general anything that pave the way to aggregators a bad idea. To let ideas, thoughts flow without soft-censorship we need to control us, individually, our information flow. That's why I favor RSS/Atom instead of modern aggregators, that's why I dislike HN interface etc.
Generally speaking if you make a business well you have to follow or try to drive client's interests but if you make a free software o technical stuff you have to do what you think it's technically best, didactically best. Think for instance about child educations, or simpler think about Ubuntu's Unity desktop: nearly all of us GNU/Linux users from few years before Unity we start to put "launchers" on left or right side of the screen simply because we feel the need of more vertical space and we know that too long/big launchers list it's practically unuseful like having classic dummy users forest of desktop icons, we all have ha small top bar from Fluxbox to Gnome or Enlightenment. Unity devs see this and "force a bit" their users to choose this superior model. At first it was not much welcomed, now it's "The Standard" of modern GNU/Linux desktop, same for "hit a key, type something, hit enter on first mach" workflow vs classic menu-based searches. That's "education". Usenet is about users, a free software/protocol, not a commercial product.
Of course it have rooms for improvements, but improvements does not means reinvent the wheel in a limited and anti-users way.
What you are describing is how a social web designed for the best interests of users that care should be. And here lies the problem, that people don't care.
> Yes, Usenet is better on some dimensions such as offline reading and non-central ownership. However, I think we can agree that typical web surfers don't care about those attributes.
Plenty of typical web surfers care about non-central ownership. But they care about non-central ownership of the things that they like to do online.
What usually happens instead is someone implements a distributed system that can shuttle data in a way that is functionally equivalent to data shuttling which currently relies on a centralized service. Hooray!
Then they write nice documentation that explains to the typical web surfer how exciting it is to go out of band and whitewash a fence.
Typical web surfers interpret that as brain damage and surf away from it.
>Refresh my memory, but upvoting wasn't even a thing until sites made commercial decisions to implement it.
I believe most common web forums like PHPBB had voting or something like it. Even imageboards have implicit "voting" by bumping threads with the latest comment to the top.
As an active phpBB and Invision user for years, I recall voting being only available with plugins, and they weren't typically considered upvotes or downvotes but reputation votes for the user. May sound like six of one / half-dozen of the other, but it was still a very different environment.
In addition, bumping was more of a way to get attention to something than to vote. As when asking for help on a specific topic, or to let other users know you edited and added to a thread's initial post.
usenet is text-based and normally used with a desktop client. People start to see colorful webapps and go for them without thinking. Consider that most "web users" now do not really know the difference between a browser and a webapp. Do not care about freedom as long as they feel free.
It's the classic Chomsky frog, now water start to be a bit hot but still ok for most people, when it will boil... It will be simply too late to came back.
An example scenario, GMail now is a semi-standard mail service (not really standard IMAP but can work with substantially any MUA) and a WebUI. If most people only know WebUI and tomorrow Alphabet decide to drop external IMAP+smtp support? If after decide to make service paid? What you have in hand with all your messages on Google servers? Another scenario, what if a government start to censor? Usenet can be blocked (and blocks circumvented) but still no one can really own it. A proprietary platform can be owned. Even if you have the code you still need server, users etc, with usenet you only need your PC.
While obviously hyperbole, it can be helpful to design for the common (often the lowest) denomonator. We don't and shouldn't demonize 'idiot-proofing', nor discount its utility. Sure, the 'sheeple' meme is cliche, but apropos.
Compare classic unices to Windows/OSX: in class system you have to learn, you can't go further without, but if you learn you grow, your comfort augment, you can afford more thing in less time and ease. In Windows/OSX etc initial learning curve is't shorter and easier, but you can't grow. All the rest of your life remain in that's initial limited state, always depending on "expert" for anything.
That's the difference between trying (and regularly fail) to be idiot-proof and trying to say "hey guys! You have to learn! It's easy, a bit long, and we can help, that's the path".
Any of us "born ignorant" and after (hopefully) learn, it's not elitism, IMVHO is realism: masses completely miss IT education (not in school programs) and learn from what they have got; they have got colorful UI from media, local stores etc and that's the only thing they know.
Do not forget the ancient and still actual Internet Manifesto, old IT was open to anyone willing to learn, elitist only with people who are not willing to learn.
Commerce use those people and common ignorance as a way to spread, impose a system nice for making money. In few countries, most anglophone, they manage to tweak the pre-exsisting culture of respect to create a "right to be ignorant" and "prize of ignorance" simply just to win there, in other countries they choose other paths like "comfort" (buy from us and all work without study or setup effort) or "need of expert" etc. It's elitism say "masses can't learn", it is not saying "masses are ignorant" (NOT in an insulting sense), that's simply a truth and since is not what most people describe as a good thing we have to remark and fight it, trying to avoid that problem make things worse and we have plenty of real life proof.
Because IT for the masses is not a game anymore. In nearly all countries of the world you need to get a license witch means prove you know how to drive before get a car, a plane, a motorbike etc, in nearly any countries you have to attend schools before being "adult" simply because we need to have a certain common knowledge ground for ourselves and for live in society.
When you teach something to your child do you lack of empathy it you say "hey child you have MANY thing to learn, let's start, will be a nice journey" instead of saying "hey child, your a king, do whatever you want" and make him suffer anytime things does not work because he or she is not a king?
IMVHO this is the problem of modern school systems, in the past they teach, they form thinking peoples, now they form only Ford-model workers, at any level, they do what they can to avoid people learn "the big picture", became autonomous thinker.
You lack empathy if you teach your child to enjoy the things you enjoy instead of helping them find what they truly love. Maybe the child doesn't care about any of that Usenet stuff and may prefer to use reddit or Snapchat.
Or perhaps the child won't be interested in any of that and will gravitate towards something else entirely, like playing music or playing sports.
The role of a parent is to initiate the child to the world. Past a certain point, the parent must take a step back and realize the child is a human being with it's own set of preferences and ambition. That doesn't mean the child is a king, but if the child is not interested in something, then what can you do?
A parent have to let child discover the world and it's own path, BUT and is a big but, it also have to teach what the child needs to live in our society.
If not, why at schools we teach geography, math, mother language, sexual education, civil education, ... I'm pretty sure not all children are interested in all this fields. Of course a good teacher do it's best not only to merely transfer knowledge but also to create interest and that's a really difficult task.
Now I have no doubt that a typical child grow up in contemporary society is more interested in smart-devices and colorful webapps instead of PCs and text-based stuff, it's up to a serious parent who know the tech to create interest and tell the child why smart devices are not good stuff and so webapps. This of course does not means train the child as an IT professional if he or she is not interested in that, but give enough knowledge to protect himself from actual society trends. Not much different than saying to be careful with adult stranger, to be careful when crossing road, swim at the sea etc. Maybe not exactly pleasant but that's the life.
Maybe it was off putting to the less tech savvy? In a similar way to how people react to reddit the first few times they see it. You know, something like "How do I use this website? It's just tons of text. It's confusing and ugly.
If I go to Google Images and search "usenet" it looks more like an FTP program than any sort of "social" website or social anything.
It might be a case of people just not getting or knowing that Usenet is in fact a "social bulletin board" of sorts?
I was there when Usenet died. It died because it had absolutely no protections against spam or abuse of any kind whatsoever. My favorite discussion boards were buried alive under a colossal mountain of spam and binaries.
Usenet was designed in a time when the Internet was only used by a tiny number of people, all of whom depended on prestigious institutions for their access to it and thus had strong motivations to not to abuse that access (since doing so would be something like career suicide). Many core assumptions in its design rest fundamentally on this always being true, which today it very much is not.
That's true but only to a limited extent: if you see today's we still have active groups without spam, with highly valuable discussions...
Spam is a symptom of our social degradation, and it's not a thing of usenet nor internet nor IT, it's about our society that reforms schools to form Ford-model workers at any level because they are easier to manage, that promote ignorance just to sell more stuff etc. Something that ANY communication free, user-centric, platform, usenet included, can contribute to reduce. When we are citizens we tend to be honest (on average), when we are consumers we tend to be raw and the right answer we all know that's not put "more cops" like in the prohibitionist era in the US or Victorian era in UK but empower people. We know even from today's data, there are more unwanted teenage pregnancies in US state with "chastity tendency" than in countries like French or Sweden with a strong sexual education at school, there are more violence in "strong police" (sorry I do not know how to name it in English) like Russia, USA, UK, Arab world than in "soft police" countries like Swiss.
Agreed. I hate saying this but it seems like Usenet's downfall may have been the rise of anonymity? Or at least it played a large part in it. Of course using your true identity to participate in online social platforms isn't required for them to be good and on the other side of the coin even real live people on social media sites act terrible towards others and "ruin it for everyone", or any other type of buzzword / rationale used to describe the phenomenon.
IMVHO simply because of social degradation, in the past even outlaws normally behave far better in society, we (as society) simply became from adults to child, regardless of our age and that's the problem.
Someone think that's being child it's easy, pleasant, so a nice selling point, also children are easy to manage so good for managers/politician etc, but there is a problem, children needs parents to live, they can't stand on their foots in the wild.
On a more limited point of view usenet work well enough for any tech savvy user and commerce see no opportunity in developing it, preferring instead push less free and more profitable web tech solutions, so on one side peoples get advertisements of "new colorful, 'featureful' platforms" and on the other nntp client like desktop MUA does not improve in any way.
Take as an example actual MUA for the masses like Thunderbird, they look '90-style, with all limitation of ancient clients, compare to webmail's evolution... Of course we have notmuch, mutt&forks, pine&forks, but they are not for the masses, so vast majority goes for actual pre-made webmail food...
I don't think we need to be able to link posts to meatspace identities, but I think we do need to have some kind of persistent identities, and there need to be some kind of cost to create new ones.
It shouldn't have been too hard to add some features that would do a pretty good job of filtering out spam.
I'm seeing the same problem with blogs. A lot of them use to have decent comments sections but the owners have given up trying to filter out the trolls, spammers, and morons and have disabled comments. There are things that can be done other than just give up.
It rapidly declined when Google pulled all the content into Google Groups. I'm pretty sure that's what killed it. Until that point it was great. It was an interesting kind of discussion forum that was worth paying for.
There's not really a social graph for usenet, though, is there? Usenet is "file first", not "people first" like Andre discussed in his talk.
Usenet seem too brittle, too centralized to ultimately become a decentralized social network. To achieve the use cases proposed in the video you'd have to implement a whole new layer on top of Usenet anyway.
I've been trying to get my head around the idea of smashing SSB (the underlying networkable append-only log store, rather than the social network) together with some of the concepts from Camlistore, IPFS and Tim Berners-Lee's SOLID stack. I'm imagining a personal database that exists on my phone, on my desktop, and on some agent somewhere in the cloud (or even a Raspberry Pi at home). Applications -- local or networked -- could request access to append certain messages to the SSB queue, and provide a series of reducers/schemas to reify those messages into a collection of views useful for the application. It'd mean that my digital life would effectively belong to one replicatable, content-addressed database, instead of the current thing where we have a mix of files and online services that hold my data in their private databases. It's a personal database that's offline-first; it's backed up; it's distributed, and it means I'd be able to interact with my data as I see fit.
It seems like an impossibly vast and intimidating project. I think the main takeaway from this ramble is that I think the new tools emerging to re-decentralize the web are really, really cool :).
SSB's root is just "hash chain + signatures", and is relatively trivial to implement. Most of the actual protocol is flawed in several ways, and there's tough issues they are still trying to solve. I'd say something based off of IPFS for bulk storage (SSB suffers from bloat, and there's multiple proposals to move actual data off the append only log and into "blobs", which are already WAY better implemented in IPFS, IMHO), with some form of "here's the bits that make up my profile" thing, possibly similar to SSB, but with a cleaner implementation. A few things that should be high priority, IMHO:
- Allow for profile "compaction"/data removal (SSB says you should never delete anything, which is frankly untenable, IMO)
- Allow for multiple devices/apps to manipulate your profile concurrently (Complex, but SSB has been criticized multiple times for vigorously arguing against this capability)
- Use a data protocol that is well formed and structured (SSB uses "node.js formatted" json serialization, and then verifies signature after deserializing and reserializing, meaning you must match node.js's serialization perfectly to interact with the rest of the ecosystem)
Hope that someone builds it for me ;). I can't really do anything with that concept, because life is very full for me currently and is likely to remain so for the next year. It's just something I've been scribbling down on paper and prodding at occasionally. I suspect it's a semi-natural idea that'll occur to a lot of people when they start looking at Dat, IPFS, SSB, SOLID, ActivityPub etc. and trying to find where commonalities may exist.
Scuttlebot seems really neat. It’s very much message oriented, which means you can easily hook in JSON or protobuf. Seems quite useful as a messaging system.
The author explains a few problems with the current state of the Web under the section The Five Lacks:
- "On the closed social web... We lack freedom, innovation, trust, respect, and transparency."
- "Innovation on these platforms is dying."
- "And there’s little transparency. All of the data is locked up or rate limited to a prohibitive degree."
While some of these may or not even be true (innovation dying, really?), I think the author makes a large leap from his premises to the conclusion. So just because the author claims there are issues with the current state of the web, that doesn't mean the solution is to completely ditch "the tech giants in control suppress our freedom" and remove yourself from the current web platform and applications (e.g. fb, google, etc.)
The best way to determine whether this is a viable and useful solution, and whether or not some of the apps are actually something people want and find useful is to see how many people ditch applications from the "tech giants" start using these new apps built for the social web.
A lot of ideas sounds great in theory, but then don't hold up years down the line. Plenty of new applications and social networks have been created over the years with great explanations and a "Our Philosophy" section, but what actually matters is whether or not people change their habits and start using these new applications.
The problems the author listed in The Five Lacks section are completely real problems on a lot of the applications on the Web, but I don't think any of these social web apps listed in the article are the solution.
It's easiest for me to approach these projects because I'm betting those developing such projects are willing to hear my user story and jam on healing-centered design for recovering information addicts such as myself.
My reason for mentioning these things is to help start the conversations around then.
I think any app with infinite scroll, which I think Patchwork might have, isn't respecting how repetitive motions like that lead to addictive behaviors and/or repetitive stress issues.
Also, I'd like to see other design patterns useful for addicting users to be publicly and loudly set aside.
Since these apps are open source, I can at least start the conversation & I can do it with pull requests.
I also think the metric of conversion is misguided for determining if it's successful. I think it's time to start measuring software design based on subjective well-being. Allow users to see metrics related to their well-being, like how much time is spent using the apps and in what ways.
I think people are first going to populate a new app ecosystem with iterations of what's popular outside the ecosystem before doing the serious work of addressing all the ways we software wrong beyond what's kept in mind when designing the ecosystem. Could that be what you're talking about?
It can't work. If you don't design for addicting behaviors none of the 80% of users who aren't addicts will use your service more than once. It's a catch 22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
This is a limiting belief. I no longer choose to hold such beliefs because they engage cognitive biases away from imagining ways it can happen.
I hypothesize an approach oriented around human needs can be immediately valuable and can grow in value for an individual user, even if they never connect to another user. Even if I haven't yet imagined it.
Choosing my beliefs intentionally is a skill I developed on my own and think a social app that simultaneously taught such a useful skill might be something people choose to learn. I've cultivated a set of skills I use to stay sane in the face of a weird world where accurately judging what's true is getting harder. I bet others could benefit from learning how to not be gaslit by politicians, for example. I think an app teaching such skills would go viral and spread as long as it remained useful.
Lots of people are heavy on beliefs and light on reality these days. I prefer to stay grounded and to study actual real world phenomena instead. It's better to use the best proven tools and methods to enact the change you want to see than to swim upstream with ineffective methods because reality makes you feel uncomfortable.
like most things in the world - assets are getting consolidated including the web, but I dont think the www will ever fully consolidate. there will always be small blogs, websites, and social networks. I really think in the next few years we are going to see a massive disruptions in the www infrastructure a lot of p2p solutions out there that look really attractive so the slate might get wiped clean soon regardless.
I actually think that mastodon, scuttlebutt, and other platforms and protocols (ActivityPub, etc.) represent the beginning of an evolution/revolution towards more decentralization - ok federation in some cases. And, the next versions of these platforms will either begin to converge...Or, there will be yet a new platform that will combine the best aspects of each of these. I can imagine a platform that has a neat UI like mastodon, leverages ActivityPub while online, and scuttlebutt when offline, etc. I'm excited about the work going on around all of this...so for now, your question is valid. But eventually, there might be less and less differences.
By the way, to answer your question, both mastodon - and other platforms that leverage the ActivityPub protocol - as well as scuttlebutt are similar in that they're either federated or decentralized; basically do not need to rely on any centralized controlling entity. They differe in numerous ways, but the biggest would be that mastodon - and other ActivityPub servers -expect to operate online, while scuttlebutt takes the "offline first" approach. Sure, there are other differences like UI, etc...But that might be the gist you're looking for.
For me it is quite different to Mastodon as it's not just a twitter replacement run on different servers.
It has entirely possible to run this completely without a server, so if in an isolated network, the local LAN could be your sole connection.
Then perhaps one person goes out to another town and connects to the internet, they collect many many messages from internet.
They then come back to the isolated network and connect, everyone gets the messages they collected. I have seen this effect happen when using both laptop client and mobile phone client.
When internet was down, my phone was able to get messages. Then it connected also to the wifi and my laptop (on the wifi) was not getting messages from internet; but got from my phone.
The author seems to miss the one thing which made the HTML web such a success - simplicity. There's nothing DIY about this new alternative. In fact with 20 years in tech behind me I found it hard to understand. Sorry, this will remain the pastime of a few dedicated geeks. I see nothing which a less-than-technical user can get a handle on.
I don't remember the HTML web being very simple when I was first starting out. Procuring a server host, FTP logins, broken links, wrangling some godforsaken HTML editor and eventually falling back on Notepad...
Anyway, JSON messages are pretty simple to hack on. For DIY stuff, your message schema can be as simple or complex as you want it to be.
Less-than-technical users can have a similar experience to Twitter, Facebook, or NextDoor. Still lots of UX work to get to that point though.
The fediverse has become my new homepage. I run my own GNU Social instance (other people are of course welcome to join) on my own server. It's faster than my older blog for thought-stream stuff and I've upped the character limit to something I'll never hit.
Well IMVHO the best "re-invention" of social web, actually social internet is already there for long, long time, respond to the name of "usenet". No-one "own" it, it's an open and well-know standard so we have various client&servers and we can build other if someone wish. All interested posts can be kept on our personal computers, locally indexed for fully offline search (the best guarantee of censorship-resistance and the simpler and quicker solution), both client and servers are far simpler than modern webapps, ...
That's the social, free, people-centric internet. Reinventing the wheel with complex and less effective solutions is not a good idea IMVHO...
Sorry for being rude and for my poor English.
A thing these days we somewhat lost unfortunately...
Better or worse has multidimensional factors.
You have to separate out what some techies like vs what the typical web surfer likes. Usenet doesn't have:
1) upvote/downvote and algorithmic ranking -- which is what Digg and Reddit were good at. Typical web surfers like to see the most upvoted stories and most upvoted comments. In contrast on Usenet, it requires a separate newsgroup reader and configuring filters and manual curation. This is too much techie work for regular folks that want a quick dopamine hit of random web content.
2) good spam control. No system is perfect but web forums like reddit and HN have less spam than Usenet.
3) rich text and formatting. The private web-based forums software like vBulletin and PhpBB are good at this. E.g. upload photos, add colorful smiley faces, avatars, etc.
4) no easy way to be "lurker" with Usenet (at least in the 1990s). To retrieve the latest Usenet posts, your newsgroup reader software had to have an "account id". Reddit and HN don't need any sign up just to read posts; just point the browser at a url. Therefore, instant gratification.
Usenet is "worse" in some dimensions when considering multiple dimensions of convenience and usability.
Yes, Usenet is better on some dimensions such as offline reading and non-central ownership. However, I think we can agree that typical web surfers don't care about those attributes.
On rich text... Well, while I welcome an org-mode-formatted usenet I still do not see any point in having text formatting capabilities, most of formatted text on the web looks really ugly and it does not help reading. Also if we re-learn to write down text in terms of formatting (for instance knowing that more than 80 columns start to be hard to read, using short URLs etc), with the classic netiquette rules we write down better contents, and perhaps with more attention. Try only to compare readability of modern web-platforms respect of ancient usenet posts in a good client and also compare the "medium quality" of posts. Photos can be a problem often circumvented by base64-encode stuff, fidocad etc, however when you really need to insert an image or video in something you post?
On upvotes, well personally I think gamification in general as a really bad idea and in general anything that pave the way to aggregators a bad idea. To let ideas, thoughts flow without soft-censorship we need to control us, individually, our information flow. That's why I favor RSS/Atom instead of modern aggregators, that's why I dislike HN interface etc.
Generally speaking if you make a business well you have to follow or try to drive client's interests but if you make a free software o technical stuff you have to do what you think it's technically best, didactically best. Think for instance about child educations, or simpler think about Ubuntu's Unity desktop: nearly all of us GNU/Linux users from few years before Unity we start to put "launchers" on left or right side of the screen simply because we feel the need of more vertical space and we know that too long/big launchers list it's practically unuseful like having classic dummy users forest of desktop icons, we all have ha small top bar from Fluxbox to Gnome or Enlightenment. Unity devs see this and "force a bit" their users to choose this superior model. At first it was not much welcomed, now it's "The Standard" of modern GNU/Linux desktop, same for "hit a key, type something, hit enter on first mach" workflow vs classic menu-based searches. That's "education". Usenet is about users, a free software/protocol, not a commercial product.
Of course it have rooms for improvements, but improvements does not means reinvent the wheel in a limited and anti-users way.
Plenty of typical web surfers care about non-central ownership. But they care about non-central ownership of the things that they like to do online.
What usually happens instead is someone implements a distributed system that can shuttle data in a way that is functionally equivalent to data shuttling which currently relies on a centralized service. Hooray!
Then they write nice documentation that explains to the typical web surfer how exciting it is to go out of band and whitewash a fence.
Typical web surfers interpret that as brain damage and surf away from it.
Refresh my memory, but upvoting wasn't even a thing until sites made commercial decisions to implement it.
No system is perfect but web forums like reddit and HN have less spam than Usenet
I'd like to see the numbers behind this assertion.
your newsgroup reader software had to have an "account id"
???
A lot of this sounds like hindsight bias and just-so stories to me.
I believe most common web forums like PHPBB had voting or something like it. Even imageboards have implicit "voting" by bumping threads with the latest comment to the top.
In addition, bumping was more of a way to get attention to something than to vote. As when asking for help on a specific topic, or to let other users know you edited and added to a thread's initial post.
usenet is text-based and normally used with a desktop client. People start to see colorful webapps and go for them without thinking. Consider that most "web users" now do not really know the difference between a browser and a webapp. Do not care about freedom as long as they feel free.
It's the classic Chomsky frog, now water start to be a bit hot but still ok for most people, when it will boil... It will be simply too late to came back.
An example scenario, GMail now is a semi-standard mail service (not really standard IMAP but can work with substantially any MUA) and a WebUI. If most people only know WebUI and tomorrow Alphabet decide to drop external IMAP+smtp support? If after decide to make service paid? What you have in hand with all your messages on Google servers? Another scenario, what if a government start to censor? Usenet can be blocked (and blocks circumvented) but still no one can really own it. A proprietary platform can be owned. Even if you have the code you still need server, users etc, with usenet you only need your PC.
>People start to see colorful webapps and go for them without thinking.
Don't describe common users as ignorant sheep or children who grasp at software because of the colors.
The rest of your comment is fine but we don't need any more elitism here.
That's the difference between trying (and regularly fail) to be idiot-proof and trying to say "hey guys! You have to learn! It's easy, a bit long, and we can help, that's the path".
Do not forget the ancient and still actual Internet Manifesto, old IT was open to anyone willing to learn, elitist only with people who are not willing to learn.
Commerce use those people and common ignorance as a way to spread, impose a system nice for making money. In few countries, most anglophone, they manage to tweak the pre-exsisting culture of respect to create a "right to be ignorant" and "prize of ignorance" simply just to win there, in other countries they choose other paths like "comfort" (buy from us and all work without study or setup effort) or "need of expert" etc. It's elitism say "masses can't learn", it is not saying "masses are ignorant" (NOT in an insulting sense), that's simply a truth and since is not what most people describe as a good thing we have to remark and fight it, trying to avoid that problem make things worse and we have plenty of real life proof.
I much prefer modern forums to usenet. And I'm sitting on a whole bunch of CS degrees.
IMVHO this is the problem of modern school systems, in the past they teach, they form thinking peoples, now they form only Ford-model workers, at any level, they do what they can to avoid people learn "the big picture", became autonomous thinker.
Or perhaps the child won't be interested in any of that and will gravitate towards something else entirely, like playing music or playing sports.
The role of a parent is to initiate the child to the world. Past a certain point, the parent must take a step back and realize the child is a human being with it's own set of preferences and ambition. That doesn't mean the child is a king, but if the child is not interested in something, then what can you do?
If not, why at schools we teach geography, math, mother language, sexual education, civil education, ... I'm pretty sure not all children are interested in all this fields. Of course a good teacher do it's best not only to merely transfer knowledge but also to create interest and that's a really difficult task.
Now I have no doubt that a typical child grow up in contemporary society is more interested in smart-devices and colorful webapps instead of PCs and text-based stuff, it's up to a serious parent who know the tech to create interest and tell the child why smart devices are not good stuff and so webapps. This of course does not means train the child as an IT professional if he or she is not interested in that, but give enough knowledge to protect himself from actual society trends. Not much different than saying to be careful with adult stranger, to be careful when crossing road, swim at the sea etc. Maybe not exactly pleasant but that's the life.
If I go to Google Images and search "usenet" it looks more like an FTP program than any sort of "social" website or social anything.
It might be a case of people just not getting or knowing that Usenet is in fact a "social bulletin board" of sorts?
Usenet was designed in a time when the Internet was only used by a tiny number of people, all of whom depended on prestigious institutions for their access to it and thus had strong motivations to not to abuse that access (since doing so would be something like career suicide). Many core assumptions in its design rest fundamentally on this always being true, which today it very much is not.
Spam is a symptom of our social degradation, and it's not a thing of usenet nor internet nor IT, it's about our society that reforms schools to form Ford-model workers at any level because they are easier to manage, that promote ignorance just to sell more stuff etc. Something that ANY communication free, user-centric, platform, usenet included, can contribute to reduce. When we are citizens we tend to be honest (on average), when we are consumers we tend to be raw and the right answer we all know that's not put "more cops" like in the prohibitionist era in the US or Victorian era in UK but empower people. We know even from today's data, there are more unwanted teenage pregnancies in US state with "chastity tendency" than in countries like French or Sweden with a strong sexual education at school, there are more violence in "strong police" (sorry I do not know how to name it in English) like Russia, USA, UK, Arab world than in "soft police" countries like Swiss.
Someone think that's being child it's easy, pleasant, so a nice selling point, also children are easy to manage so good for managers/politician etc, but there is a problem, children needs parents to live, they can't stand on their foots in the wild.
On a more limited point of view usenet work well enough for any tech savvy user and commerce see no opportunity in developing it, preferring instead push less free and more profitable web tech solutions, so on one side peoples get advertisements of "new colorful, 'featureful' platforms" and on the other nntp client like desktop MUA does not improve in any way.
Take as an example actual MUA for the masses like Thunderbird, they look '90-style, with all limitation of ancient clients, compare to webmail's evolution... Of course we have notmuch, mutt&forks, pine&forks, but they are not for the masses, so vast majority goes for actual pre-made webmail food...
I'm seeing the same problem with blogs. A lot of them use to have decent comments sections but the owners have given up trying to filter out the trolls, spammers, and morons and have disabled comments. There are things that can be done other than just give up.
Abuse aside, there is signal vs noise. The Eternal September will overwhelm any system that cannot self-regulate its own content.
People look at the screen and scroll, they don't even stop for reading the titles
Usenet seem too brittle, too centralized to ultimately become a decentralized social network. To achieve the use cases proposed in the video you'd have to implement a whole new layer on top of Usenet anyway.
It seems like an impossibly vast and intimidating project. I think the main takeaway from this ramble is that I think the new tools emerging to re-decentralize the web are really, really cool :).
- Allow for profile "compaction"/data removal (SSB says you should never delete anything, which is frankly untenable, IMO)
- Allow for multiple devices/apps to manipulate your profile concurrently (Complex, but SSB has been criticized multiple times for vigorously arguing against this capability)
- Use a data protocol that is well formed and structured (SSB uses "node.js formatted" json serialization, and then verifies signature after deserializing and reserializing, meaning you must match node.js's serialization perfectly to interact with the rest of the ecosystem)
- "On the closed social web... We lack freedom, innovation, trust, respect, and transparency."
- "Innovation on these platforms is dying."
- "And there’s little transparency. All of the data is locked up or rate limited to a prohibitive degree."
While some of these may or not even be true (innovation dying, really?), I think the author makes a large leap from his premises to the conclusion. So just because the author claims there are issues with the current state of the web, that doesn't mean the solution is to completely ditch "the tech giants in control suppress our freedom" and remove yourself from the current web platform and applications (e.g. fb, google, etc.)
The best way to determine whether this is a viable and useful solution, and whether or not some of the apps are actually something people want and find useful is to see how many people ditch applications from the "tech giants" start using these new apps built for the social web.
A lot of ideas sounds great in theory, but then don't hold up years down the line. Plenty of new applications and social networks have been created over the years with great explanations and a "Our Philosophy" section, but what actually matters is whether or not people change their habits and start using these new applications.
The problems the author listed in The Five Lacks section are completely real problems on a lot of the applications on the Web, but I don't think any of these social web apps listed in the article are the solution.
My reason for mentioning these things is to help start the conversations around then.
I think any app with infinite scroll, which I think Patchwork might have, isn't respecting how repetitive motions like that lead to addictive behaviors and/or repetitive stress issues.
Also, I'd like to see other design patterns useful for addicting users to be publicly and loudly set aside.
Since these apps are open source, I can at least start the conversation & I can do it with pull requests.
I also think the metric of conversion is misguided for determining if it's successful. I think it's time to start measuring software design based on subjective well-being. Allow users to see metrics related to their well-being, like how much time is spent using the apps and in what ways.
I think people are first going to populate a new app ecosystem with iterations of what's popular outside the ecosystem before doing the serious work of addressing all the ways we software wrong beyond what's kept in mind when designing the ecosystem. Could that be what you're talking about?
I hypothesize an approach oriented around human needs can be immediately valuable and can grow in value for an individual user, even if they never connect to another user. Even if I haven't yet imagined it.
Choosing my beliefs intentionally is a skill I developed on my own and think a social app that simultaneously taught such a useful skill might be something people choose to learn. I've cultivated a set of skills I use to stay sane in the face of a weird world where accurately judging what's true is getting harder. I bet others could benefit from learning how to not be gaslit by politicians, for example. I think an app teaching such skills would go viral and spread as long as it remained useful.
By the way, to answer your question, both mastodon - and other platforms that leverage the ActivityPub protocol - as well as scuttlebutt are similar in that they're either federated or decentralized; basically do not need to rely on any centralized controlling entity. They differe in numerous ways, but the biggest would be that mastodon - and other ActivityPub servers -expect to operate online, while scuttlebutt takes the "offline first" approach. Sure, there are other differences like UI, etc...But that might be the gist you're looking for.
Then perhaps one person goes out to another town and connects to the internet, they collect many many messages from internet.
They then come back to the isolated network and connect, everyone gets the messages they collected. I have seen this effect happen when using both laptop client and mobile phone client.
When internet was down, my phone was able to get messages. Then it connected also to the wifi and my laptop (on the wifi) was not getting messages from internet; but got from my phone.
Running a service "without a server" misunderstands the client-server model.
Perhaps you are referring to delay tolerant messaging.
Anyway, JSON messages are pretty simple to hack on. For DIY stuff, your message schema can be as simple or complex as you want it to be.
Less-than-technical users can have a similar experience to Twitter, Facebook, or NextDoor. Still lots of UX work to get to that point though.
Anyone else do something similar?