Decentralized social media

[Anonymous No.51684927]

What are the financial implications of social media most likely decentralizing in the future?

Will Facebook and co. all go bankrupt if people find out about this?

[Anonymous No.51684946]

>>51684927
Not gonna happen rvp cuck.

[Anonymous No.51684958]

I also posted this on /g/

>>>/g/88876351

Let's discuss the current state, developments and the future of the decentralized Web, decentralized/federated social media and other decentralized services and applications.

FAQ:
>What is the decentralization of the Web?
The Internet in its early form was limited and only used by few in the beginning, so its initial structure prioritized implementability over resilience.
This proved to not be a big problem for a while: once the Internet started being used widely by the public, in the phase that is now commonly reffered to as "Web 1.0", the Internet was relatively decentralized, but also cluttered and hard to navigate.
Made up of many small websites, the diversity of implementations and content was vast, although interoperability and ease of use were not quite as developed as we are used to today.
This changed in the time of "Web 2.0", where social media first began to be widely used by the public at large and when mobile users started making up a ever growing portion of Internet users.
Because of the influx of this large amount of new, inexperienced users, the demand for streamlined content and protocols became stronger, as well as the wish to monetize these new users.
And so it came to pass that most of the Web became centralized, the majority of Internet traffic now controlled by only a few websites. Innovation and diversity of protocols took a back seat to uniformity, for the sake of accessibility.
But as the call for monetization of this new industry became louder, quality and the scope of interactions online became even less of a concern, streamlining taking top priority.
As a result, many people today lament what they have lost, the better time when interactions between people and with the services online were more genuine, when there was much more to discover and do on the vast Web.

contd.

[Anonymous No.51684984]

>>51684958
To recap quickly:
Web 1.0: more freedom, more diversity, more genuine experience, but more cluttered, less accessible, no wide reach, no focus on privacy. In short: decentralized and fun, but crudely implemented.
Web 2.0: more uniform and thus more accessible and easy to use, everything works the same on all devices, vast reach, but most interactions feel artificial and samey, all content is sanitized in order to be more monetizable, censorship runs rampant in practice, still no focus on privacy. In short: centralized and soul-stifling, but running smoothly.
So, whatever comes after (which some might call "Web 3.0") must combine the advantages of Web 1.0 and 2.0, but discard their bad aspects: Web 3.0 must be like Web 1.0 in spirit, but like Web 2.0 in execution, as well as fundamentally more privacy-oriented.

>What is federation?
To put it in simple terms: an application, service or protocol is federated when it allows for a diversity of implementations, but speaks the same language in the background, allowing for a seamless, centralized-like experience with all the advantages of decentralization.
Good examples of this are Bittorrent, HTML, XMPP, ActivityPub, Matrix or the e-mail-protocols: you can write e-mails to whoever you want no matter what e-mail application they use, because they all use the same protocols underneath, i.e. they speak the same language.

>What is decentralized/federated social media?
Decentralized social media are platforms that run on the above-mentioned principles: their inner workings are streamlined and smooth-running, but allow for a multitude of implementations which are all able to communicate with each other, they're decentralized and ideally FOSS, and thus censorship-resistant.

contd.

[Anonymous No.51685023]

>>51684958
>>51684984
>News:
Jack Dorsey's Former Boss Is Building A Decentralized Twitter
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2022/09/11/jack-dorseys-former-boss-is-building-a-decentralized-twitter/
Twitter-funded social media project Bluesky adds Jack Dorsey to board
https://www.reuters.com/technology/twitter-funded-social-media-project-bluesky-adds-jack-dorsey-board-2022-02-08/

>Decentralized protocols (use case):
HTML (website source code)
POP3/IMAP (e-mail)
Bittorrent (sharing files)
XMPP (federated chat/social media)
Matrix (federated chat/social media)
ActivityPub (federated social media)

>Decentralized social media implementations (similar use case):
The Fediverse/ActivityPub:
Fedilab (general purpose Fediverse-browser)
Mastodon (Twitter)
PeerTube (YouTube)
FChannel (imageboards, 4chan)
Lemmy (Reddit)
Pixelfed (Instagram)
Pleroma (microblogging platforms, tumblr)
Friendica (Facebook)

XMPP:
Movim (chat and social media)

Matrix:
MinesTRIX (social media)

>Decentralized chat implementations (similar use case):
XMPP:
Movim (chat and social media)

Matrix:
Element (chat)
Syphon (chat)

[Anonymous No.51685110]

>>51684946
Just to be clear, Web 3.0 doesn't refer to shitcoiner delusions.

Hosting masses of data on a blockchain is braindead because it's main use case is being an adversarial database, not an efficient one.
So, at most it could make sense to store something like user id's or login credentials on a blockchain, but for hosting actual content decentralized or distributed networks with zero-knowledge encryption is clearly better.