When the World Wide Web first took off in the mid 1990s, the dream wasn’t just big, it was distributed: Everyone would have their own home page, everyone would post their thoughts – they weren’t called “blogs” until 1999 – and everyone would own their own data, for there was no one around offering to own it for us. The web consisted of nodes joined by links, with no center.
Oh, how times have changed.
Now a handful of companies own vast swaths of web activity – Facebook for social networking, Google for searching, eBay for auctions – and quite literally own the data their users have provided and generated. This gives these companies unprecedented power over us, and gives them such a competitive advantage that it’s pretty silly to think you’re going to start up a business that’s going to beat them at their own game. The fact that Facebook already has the data in 1.7 billion users’ profiles and, more important, the history of its users’ interactions means that you’re probably not going to attract a lot of savvy investors. Plus that’s where all your friend are already. Vendor lock-in is real.
Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-web/#ixzz4Gx527wY4
One of the most sneaky takeovers of the internet, is in the behind-the-scenes operations, like the akamais and cloudflares. They have created a second internet within the internet, and if you are not using their internet or some major cloud service, it's like you are subject to a whole sort of DDOS vectors. So they've managed to centralize the "resilient" Internet in a few private companies.
I think this is what must be "taken back" first and foremost.
Agreed! This can be taken back by having the clients served from a blockchain with many nodes. Which is what Steem is leading us to.
This is one of the most important comments I've seen from you. Upvoted with vigor.
Thanks :D
very good post! thank you!
I bet he will love blockhain.
oh yeah, i think so too
Time for us too regain control over internetfreedom
Hmmm...sounds like those folks are cuttin' into our racket. :0)
But seriously: it's really nice to see Sir Tim act on what us folks have been complaining & doing something about. "If the product is free, you are the product." Not for long...
Facebook, Google, Cloudfare, and others are really a huge threat to privacy and freedom. I wish we could get rid of them.
Synereo, Diaspora, and other decentralized social networks appear to be architecturally similar to TBL's Solid concept.
Synereo uses some form of node-to-node process calculi model which is afaik eventually consistent; whereas, a blockchain provides deterministic global consistency. Note however, I have been working on an improvement to Satoshi's design which allows for some indeterminism in the timing of global consistency from the standpoint of validation, which was very important for fixing the scaling problem while retaining decentralization that for example Steem's (Graphene) DPoS forsakes.
The advantage of the blockchain model is that there is a global consistency that is immutable and provides certain guarantees. The Solid model is only locally consistent and eventually globally consistency with probabilistic outcomes. The latter is more resilient to censorship and centralized attack.