People:
Hell yeah we need to DECENTRALIZE THE INTERNET

Same people:
*host their own project at aws*

Do what I say, not what I do

I wonder what good a decentralized internet would be like in terms of social media etc. Say if Facebook dies and Mastodon replaces it. Should I really have to connect to half a dozen servers just to catch up with my friends? And what good is decentralized social media when only technical people can get a Mastodon server up and running?

Not sure if decentralizing all the things is really a good idea...

@Condor Thank you. Someone had to say it

@Condor That would be the same issue people had on video games (MMORPG mostly) with different servers and not just a "big one".

"Ah damn! You're on XXX? Fuck, I'm on YYY... I'll have to make another char... AGAIN!"

@Condor

Have you tried mastodon?

You dont "need to connect servers" in order to make it work.

@Condor

Also, you dont even have to be super technical to make it work, because you can spin one up with Yunohost.

@Condor

Also, people can join other instances if they dont know how to set one up. Or just get one at https://masto.host/

Damn I spam my own post

@Linux "No worries, I already reported you four times!"

It's an interesting and important topic anyway, so it's better to get relevant information.

@Linux I have to admit, the only time I attempted to register on a Mastodon instance was on your social.linux.pizza. But, say if I want to register on another Mastodon instance managed by.. I don't know, @linuxxx for example. Wouldn't I have to register again with new credentials on a new server there? I haven't looked into the insides of Mastodon and I'm not running one of my own (perhaps I should look into that), but I doubt that it can somehow know all the other Mastodon servers in existence, let alone replicate everything like authentication data, friends circles and posts across independent nodes. And if it does, I can only imagine that to be done through a central server then. Which would mean - there's your centralization.

I'm not saying that it's impossible. What I'm saying is that it's pretty difficult and to me honestly doesn't make much sense.

@Jilano also hey hey, check out my RSPS that I've just made 🙃 my rules that put me at an advantage apply and I start out as a billionaire, but it'll be awesome!! Come, join me now 😁

@Condor

If you wanted to move to another instance, you can export your data (as a file) on the instance you want to migrate from - and import it on the new instance.

Followers will be notified and you will automatically follow the same accounts you followed before.

how does deploying app on aws clash with the idea of decentralization? There's 1 service provider (--), but your app is not bound to one physical location (++) and you can deploy it on multiple VMs across different continents (++).
Yet noone says that app must be deployed on AWS _ONLY_. Hetzner, scaleway, azure, etc - co-deploy your app everywhere and make a decentralized arch.

@netikras

Well you said it -

"There's 1 service provider (--),"

Services is using [INSERT-BIG-SERVICE-PROVIDER-HERE] to larger and larger extend.

@Linux well that's not very straightforward, is it. Sure I could move from server x to server y and hope for the best that every one of my friends will follow (good luck with that). But if I have friends at this and that server, I'd have to have separate identities on every one of them and connect to all the Mastodon instances separately, shouldn't I?

I guess it's similar to the current status quo where some friends have Telegram, some WhatsApp, some Signal (unfortunately not many), some Instagram, some Facebook, some Twitter, some (God forbid) Google+, some Kik, some ...

You get the idea, right. There's way too many social media platforms out there already. Having that level of segregation on yet another level - inside one single social media platform! - I can't see how that'd be in any way a good thing.

Sure it isn't managed by the Evil Zucc or whatever. But other than that, no. Besides, I'd rather have a platform be managed by someone who doesn't know me than by someone whom I have a personal relationship with. Someone who personally knows me might treat me differently when doing management after all. For example, if your wife is on your Mastodon server and does something that violates your rules, something that would qualify for a ban. Would you ban her?

@Linux umm.. If I deploy my app on AWS it doesn't mean that I don't have a distributed system. If I deploy it ONLY on AWS - then yes, I agree with you 100%. But if AWS is only one of my service providers then I'm sorry my friend, but that's just some amazingly good risks management and indeed a distributed arch.

@netikras

There is other smaller providers where you can deploy your app on actually.

My rant was not against AWS in particular, but big ass cloud provider (AWS, Gcloud, Azure) that is sucking up smaller hosters.

@Condor You dont realize that you actually can follow and interact with users from other instances? Why would your friends need to move if you decide to?

You can move to @linuxxx (example) instance and your friend can still be at mine, or some other ones. You are not limited to interact with people from that particular instance only.

I dont get the idea, because what you are saying is wrong.

If my wife have behaved badly - other instances can ban my instance, or her account.

@Linux hmm, I see.. so essentially friends can be added and their posts followed across instances? That's actually kinda useful. From what I understand so far, it's pretty much "pick your favorite instance, add people from there but also other instances to your circles, and if I want to move to somewhere else I can just take my data and insert it in another instance"?

@Condor

That is correct :)

@Linux

UsE BloCKcHaIn

to fix that decentralised app problem

@Linux @Condor Just wanted to write I learned something new from your conversation. Thanks guys.

But, isn’t the internet decentralized?

@bcye Technically speaking: maybe

*most* of the internet as we know it (and which we use to, for example, rant on DevRant) is governed by the ICANN...
so technically, they are the central place for the entire internet.

Ofcourse, this does not take in account "alternative internets" like B.A.T.M.A.N and Project Meshnet (I think it's nowadays called Hyperboria?), but you get my drift.

@rEaL-jAsE
"Businesses"

Not real companies :/

@rEaL-jAsE a lot of "businesses" (read: "shitty single-person businesses with barely any clients") use wix or weeblybhere as well.
Or WordStress... a lot of em use that too (and rarely update... still finding websites that are 4 years behind on updates)

@rEaL-jAsE

Yeah we have some here in sweden to, they are horrible. And some does even use the free version

In a centralized internet, you get so much more profit when hosting at a cloud like aws.
I think if we had a decentralized system, all those people you are talking about would build their own servers.

@Mitiko

No,

Companies and people should actually look at smaller providers, and also providers from their area (atleast same country).

@Linux Those would almost never have as reliable services and would probably be more expensive too

@Mitiko
Reliable? Many providers is reliable. Big cloud providers have downtime too.
Expensive? Maybe. But worth it.

I host quite some stuff at ArubaCloud atm.
Barely had any noticable issues and it's really damn affordable

@FinlayDaG33k
Well, aws is expensive compared to where I work :p

@Linux idk where you work so that's hard to judge :p

I see you run a Mastodon node btw?

Sweet, I'll sign up in a moment :)

While I'm at it, Any CjDNS users over here?

I'm currently looking into building a CjDNS mesh combined with IEEE801.11s

I'm still not sure what "decentralising the internet" actually means.

@AlmondSauce depending on who you ask it can differ.
The definition I go by is: "not having the internet be in hands of a single entity" (so basically the internet should in hands of the people using it).

We don't want it to have a single point of failure, nor be governed by a single entity (like the ICANN... or ICANNcer as some call it).
While this does have some complications (like for example people using it to spread Captain Picard or Julian Bashir), this, in my opinion, is how the internet always should have been.

I don't really care about staying "anonymous" (giving my handle a quick search on DuckDuckGo should reveal a lot about me), I just care about big companies acting like they own the damn internet and treating us like a product instead of a human being.

bonus tongue twister:
Can the ICANN cancan? yes, the ICANN can cancan

@FinlayDaG33k

" I just care about big companies acting like they own the damn internet and treating us like a product instead of a human being."

Well, that is just another way of saying "Google" :P

@FinlayDaG33k I guess I don't really see what there is to gain from getting rid of ICANN - ok, so we have decentralised control of domain names (somehow)... then what?

Bigger companies only really have leverage over certain parts of the internet because they're in control of large parts of the infrastructure, of they produce browsers that many people use. Neither of that will change, however "decentralised" the internet may become. Someone's gotta fund them.

@AlmondSauce The browsers are not the problem, they are the choice of people to use (just like people have the freedom to choose between Arch and/or Ubtntu for example).
That is called freedom of choice.

What is not acceptable imo is that one central authority rules the entire internet and people just have to deal with it.
If people want to follow that central authority, then sure, by all means, feel free to, but don't force those who do not choose to to follow them.
The ICANN is such an authority.

Maybe it would help if I elaborate on my "freedom of choice" statement.

I, for example, use Android.
I choose to use Android, nobody forced me.
In return, I give them some of my data.
That's my choice.

I do not use Arch Linux (nothing against Arch), that's my choice.
Arch therefore, should not force me to use Arch (which they don't... Arch Users excluded).

I use my ISPs internet to write this rant, it's my choice to use this ISP over others.
In return, I give them money.
It's my choice to pay them for their services.

I use ICANN's stuff to browse the internet without having to remember IPs (and due to the way most servers seem to setup, remembering IPs won't rly help, shared hosting for example).
There is no other way for me to properly use the Internet without having to use the ICANN (even though indirectly) as there are no competitors on the clearnet (as far as I know off).
ICANN therefore is a single point of failure that thinks they own the internet.
This is my problem.

Fucking this! Even goverments tend to think lore that way.

@NeatNerdPrime you mean like they own the place?

if so, yes, which is exactly why zi dislike most governments.
They do good stuff at times, but often they only create issues.

@FinlayDaG33k This is all true, but how much of a problem is it in practice? It all just strikes me as a bit... theoretical. The only practical consequence is that if someone wants a domain name, they end up having to pay ICANN for it indirectly (but not much for it, in reality.) Sure, it'd be nice if they weren't the sole responsible entity, but heh... bigger problems to sort out, IMHO.

The internet is decentralised, basically all you're talking about is DNS and IPs, you can use Tor, thanks to the US military, and remove the DNS issue, and most of the IP issues too.

@ThomasRedstone
What? That does not make sense
You missed the point

@Linux the very core principle of the internet that it is a resilient distributed network, which no one party controls.
That is certainly true of the network itself.
The only part with any central control is DNS and IP.
Except regional authorities control names and IPs in their region.
Ican doesn't have any real power, as their abuse of they power would have them replaced on a per country basis, or simply be replaced.
It would harm the internet, but it would never happen, because ican know that it isn't their power to abuse at the end of the day.

Ultimately, of I missed the point, could you explain what your point is?

@Linux have you got experience with making a decentralized system? If so how can I contact you to ask a few questions about it?

@ThomasRedstone

That is not really what I meant.

Services on internet is more centralized around 3 (possibly 4) large companies: Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google.

The latter one controls a big amount of services, have you for example tried to visit a simple website while have blocked everything on googles ASN? - the site will break.

Everything and everyone uses something that is google made/owned. That is centralized.

@Codex404

If you mean clustering? I have done a few.

Otherwhise, you could check out mastodon, and other federated services:

http://fediverse.network/

@Linux Ah I will check that link out. I was mainly wondering about things as how do instances know each other? With mastodon, according to stackoverflow, instances don't until a user follows a user from another instance.

@Codex404

Yes, that is basically true. But now relays exist too

@Linux can I contact you somehow? So chatting will be easier? Gitter for example?

@Codex404
I dont have gitter, but telegram, email, Mastodon (link in profile),

@Linux signing up for mastodon:

@Codex404

But it worked for you?

@Linux yes, but something is wrong in how the mail server is configured.

@Codex404
Well, it is the first time I see that actually. Everything is correct configured.

@Linux https://protonmail.com/support/...

@Codex404
I know that, and everything is correct. My dmarc reports looks great

@lunorian
It is good to use different providers