@ioptio how were the tacos? Wendy Hanamura seems to be quite enthusiastic about it.
In that place with that panel you did a brilliant job and I would think the community is proud of you. I would have loved to have been there and looking at it I was gutted I was not. You took up the reins and did a fantastic job though. So we all owe you a huuugggeee beer for sure. Thanks @ioptio really nice work and great you got SAFE on such a platform.
Next time I will bug you a little longer. ![]()
Interesting article. Havenât time to watch video so will be missing stuff but I feel the article touches on things that arenât really being focused on by this community.
As said at the end of the article:
âThe web is already decentralized,â Mr. Berners-Lee said. âThe problem is the dominance of one search engine, one big social network, one Twitter for microblogging. We donât have a technology problem, we have a social problem.â
In reality SAFE may make it harder to prosecute users of the network and for content to be censored and removed. technologically it might even work for places like China - but in practice the challenge is different.
I imagine you will find a high degree of centralisation (conceptually) forming within the services on the network. There is far too much data on the Internet for anyone to know/remember where a fraction of it is and this is obviously why Google are massive. Without Google (or similar) most people would probably just live on the same handful of websites and these would end up being jump points off to other places. These services become centralised gatekeepers to the rest of the network. Without this type of thing youâre really back the pre-Internet age - where essentially word of mouth is what drives traffic.
So, the Chinese government might not be able to block users from SAFE however if we imagine things do take off for the network there will be a new generation of Google, Facebook, etc. They will have just as much control as they do now, plus they will have to develop their systems in a way that allows them to censor material that is posted to their services - I canât imagine their everyday users would stick around for too long if theyâre stumbling across data that offends them.
Having corporations with the level of power that Google, FB, etc. have is a real problem.
What are the thoughts on this topic?
It currently 8:10 am (says I, being a human clock) in SF. The streaming page has a view of people filtering into the lecture hall, with an accompaniment of elevator music. What happens at 9:00? The half dozen workshops are simultaneous.
It isnât the corporation that is the real problem. Itâs the government, and their regulations that lead to this very moment, where corporation has to pass all the data into the governmentâs hands. The emerge of corporation and the state is coming. Corporations does not exist in free market. It only exist because of the state. Facebook has turned into a GovBook. Google has turn into Govsearch.
Safenet will put them into shame. We need to educate people that nobody should be using a corporation run system, especially over safenet. The power of your mouse clicking is what makes them thrive. Itâs like voting with your money, but with the mouse click. People donât seem to understand their actions has consequences.
You can see the live stream @bluebird? The website links me back to yesterdays stream ![]()
On their main page: http://www.decentralizedweb.net/
I just get the video from yesterdayâs half of the event.
Sponsered by Google, Ford Foundation, and EFF.
leers
Oops, I was stupid. I was looking at yesterdayâs stream. ![]()
If you click on livestream it takes you here, for elevator music and a fixed graphic:
We all like to watch people filing into rooms so donât feel bad!
Edit: For anyone interested in a schedule for todayâs D Web session http://www.decentralizedweb.net/schedule/#meetup
Edit: Paige will be doing a workshop anywhere between 9:00 and 10:30, but then it says each workshop is 90 minutes long⌠and there are 5 of them between 9 and 10:30
Still donât see a new stream
Sigh, itâs a damn loop of yesterday. Hit refresh and it starts over again. (stupid me, squared). When Mrs. Bubbly got to talking about their petabytes of data i had an eerie sense that I had heard it before.
We have to be patient and wait until 9:00am.
No stream up yet (20)
Edit: NVM
This one is labelled âday 2â: Decentralized Web Summit Day 2 - YouTube
First mover advantage is only real if people care more about being in a cult than about progress in science. The only reason the current community is cult like is because so few people give a damn about Bitcoin or Dash that the same few people own both.
When you have enough people first mover advantage ceases to exist. Myspace had first mover advantage. Unix had first mover advantage. Apple had first mover advantage. It doesnât mean shit in the end.
What matters is utility. If something has low utility and another something with low utility also copies it, then of course in that context first mover advantage could matter. On the other hand if something comes along with a lot of utility then whatever had first mover advantage (cult advantage) is obsolete over night. Sure some people might be loyal to obsolete technology but that is as irrational as the people who donât want to use Bitcoin and stick with obsolete technology.
So youâre depending on people remaining irrational and cult like which in my opinion isnât something we should bet on or promote. I care about progress and about solutions and donât care about first mover advantage. The best technology should win just as in nature the most fit is what wins in evolutionary terms. First mover advantage and cultish behavior slows the rate of evolution just as it is with the Bitcoin example you chose.
Itâs finally showing the lightning talks!
Iâm not sure I see how will SAFE alone will change this? Imagine Google is running on SAFE. Itâs a corporation. Itâs subject to the same regulations that it is at the moment.
No they wont. They cannot monopolize a network they canât purchase.