@firstname.lastname@example.org Thanks bud 🤗
I’ve read the paper from Session and even played with it in the past 👌 I just wanted to point out something though, right there, not very far down:
Session utilises the decentralised Oxen Service Node Network to store
and route messages. This means that unlike P2P messaging applications
you can message Session users when they are offline.
This network consists of community operated nodes which are stationed
all over the world. Service nodes are organised into collections of small
co-operative groups called swarms. Swarms offer additional redundancy
and message delivery guarantees even if some service nodes become
unreachable. By using this network, Session doesn’t have a central point
of failure, and Session’s creators have no capacity to collect or store
personal information about people using the app.
I guess the problem I really have, same with this whole Web3 Blockchain nonsense, is that we blur the lines between what is a centralised system, vs a decentralised system, vs a distributed system (sorry forked as we’re getting off topic…)
Does that make sense? 🤔 Even though it’s not too different from say you using my pod and trusting me, I feel its about making it as easy as possible to rely on your own infra if you so desired.
For example, I am quite sure you coudl run up your own Session node, hell even run up a Swarm of them (as they are called), but how easy is that to do? 🤔
@email@example.com I get it. I think in the past we had the discussion about centralization, decentralization, distributed and even federated. It’s an important distinction.
I haven’t read the Signal documentation, only used it (and then I moved to Telegram and Session). That said, why do you say or think that Salty is similar to Signal?
I’m suspecting of being more recognized as a brand that other hipster solutions, is that the case?
@firstname.lastname@example.org To be honest it’s just what I know and use myself regularly (for now)
@email@example.com Oh, I don’t know, web3 consumes hundreds of time more electricity to solve a problem nobody actually has using techniques that have never been proved to work better than the 40+-year-old algorithms that already do the same things.
That, and that they enable unbelievable consolidation of wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people, as well as criminal activity, from minor scams all the way up to massive ransomeware attacks that put hospitals and basic infrastructure at risk.
There is nothing good about cryptocurrency, and very very very much wrong with it. It should have been eradicated long ago, but I guess we don’t fix broken things anymore.
@firstname.lastname@example.org I completely agree, I’ve spoken many a time before publically here on my detest towards cryptocurrencies, blockchains, and all manner of unnecessarily complicated garbage 😅
@email@example.com Web 1.x / Web 2.x and even this now Web3 bullshit has little to nothing to do with “security” 😅 It’s all the shortcuts companies take to “make a quick buck” where the problems lie.
@firstname.lastname@example.org I would say there are only a few good thinks about cryptocurrency (disclaimer, I received funding to work on it) but now the bad parts overcame the few good things.
Usually I don’t like to think on black and white terms, but different amounts of gray, which makes the conversation very hard for a few twts.
And another important distinction is between web3 ™ and The Web 3.0
That being said, it’s not what we expect. What would be better for us? Web 4.0, The Hobbyst Net? IDK
@email@example.com Nuance is good, but I like to think that I have a nuance budget, and I choose to apply the nuance budget to things that deserve it. Cryptocurrency does not deserve nuance, in my personal view. It’s too dangerous, too polluting, too corrupted. It barely had merit to begin with.
@firstname.lastname@example.org not to be daft, but ipv6 gaining wide adoption would be a plus. A lot of web 2.0 problems emerge from resource battles over the limited ip4 address space.
@email@example.com (that’s not to say it couldn’t have ever been good, but as you say, it’s too far gone these days, it would seem)
@firstname.lastname@example.org @email@example.com I agree that IPv6 would/will be a great thing for decentralization. However, I think folks would like easy to use software regardless of whether it’s centralized or decentralized. I have found a deep lack of care about privacy and rights in general from your average citizen. They just want nice stuff. They don’t care if it means giving away rights/becoming slaves.
@firstname.lastname@example.org Yeah you are right. This is sadly very true. Probably some of it comes down to “education” though. How many people actually understand where their data goes? How many actually understand anything about even the most basic security? What about the meaning of privacy? I’ve managed to teach my young (7r old) daughter the meaning of privacy by showing her that I can see what she watches on on our Plex TV and explained to her that by using “Cloud Services” you are “spied” on in the same way. The difference? She trusts her father 😅
@email@example.com That’s a really good point. Education definitely makes a huge difference. In addition, I think we as technologists have a duty to make the decentralized/rights preserving tech the most appealing.
@firstname.lastname@example.org @email@example.com I’m of this mind too. I don’t think it’s that people don’t care. I think it’s that people have other, more important things to care about, that they don’t know enough to know the dangers involved, and even if they did they wouldn’t know what to do about it anyway. So they choose to put it aside, which is a fairly rational choice under those assumptions, if you think about it. What possible reason would someone have to care about slowly losing their rights because of Facebook’s lousy policies when they are spending all their time working, raising kids, caring for loved ones, worrying about COVID, worrying about inflation, etc etc etc? It’s too abstract, too far away, too easy to ignore. If we want them to care, we are obligated to teach them what’s at stake and help them see why they should care (and also not judge them if they decide not to care, because that’s part of it too–paternalistically dictating to people what they should and shouldn’t is no good)
@firstname.lastname@example.org Precisely 👌
@email@example.com I agree with you on all points. I want to clarify that while I think we should build stuff that preserves peoples rights, I’m am strongly opposed to forcing them to use it. It’s entirely possible that what I build might be misguided and actually hurt those ends. It might also just suck. Ultimately, I think people’s free choice should be the decider.
@firstname.lastname@example.org hmmm, I wouldn’t say more important, but something they value more. Until you have an attack or an identity theft you know the real value of your privacy. Until that moment it’s ‘worthless’, and for that reason the time required to take care of that is infinitely expensive
As usual, security is a perception, perceived as a reality
@email@example.com what’s the practical difference between something being more important vs. valued more?
That said, caring for your health, avoiding being killed or maimed by a brutal disease for instance, is 100% more important than caring about whether tech companies are taking good care with your data. That’s pretty obvious. Half the United States is in that state, I think. At least.
@firstname.lastname@example.org what’s the difference? a lot!
Example: Health is important for a good quality of life, but if you don’t care about your life (in the short term at least), you won’t take care of something important.
So, if someone doesn’t care about their privacy or health, well, we are lost as a community