Hello,

There are loads of people who dislike centralised services, like facebook, twitter, dropbox and so on, yet still no one seems to be very curious about decentralised systems. How come?

Lemmy scratches the surface with lots of centralised servers, but pushing it, everyone could have their own soft that, for example, is their “user”. A user having “facebook”/twitter/dropbox/sharing capabilities. Still no one seems to even pursue those kind of ideas. Even in theory.

Is it because the dopamine triggering algorithm wins everyone over? The fear of using a soft that communicated on an open port on your device? Or what might it be? But that doesn’t make sense to me, because people don’t even discuss it. Or am I not invited to those discussions 😁?

It should be trivial to spin up a sharing system, for example (harboring laws would protect you), or some “friends, and friends friends only” network a la facebook in tje early days.

It’s not limited by technology, and people are smart and curious.

So where are they?

Edit: I know that even if the service existed, most people wouldn’t use it and prefer Facebook et al. But that absolutely nobody has spun up one is what baffles me. Thousands work on the Linux kernel, where are the hardcore network nerds?

  • Canaconda@lemmy.ca
    22·
    6 days ago

    There are loads of people who dislike centralised services

    You just encounter a disproportionately higher amount of them on lemmy/your-circles than the true ratio of people in society. The vast majority of people barely think about any of that stuff. Especially stupid people.

    • Zarobi@aussie.zoneEnglish
      5·
      6 days ago

      Interesting definition of stupidity in that link. To summarise; they define it like this:

      • Idiots are people who bring losses to themselves as well as others.
      • Intelligent people bring benefit to themselves and others.
      • Bandits only benefit themselves to the detriment of others
      • Abuse victims bring benefits to others to their own detriment.

      I’m not sure I really agree with it, but it is interesting. Seems a bit mercantile to define intelligence entirely by perceived input/output of benefits.