On @SamHarrisOrg said:
"Welcome to the panopticon...
China becomes an episode of Black Mirror"
and shared this article:
to which my response was:
"Give it 5-10 years, then we'll have it too, but with better marketing, but effectively similar.
IIRC Eindhoven has a system (in pilot?) 'similar' as shown in the head picture (Person of Interest style) ... for a snitch city project. Fighting crime and/or terrorism will be used too"
I just realized that the above video was @aral speaking 👌
And I recently found https://video.lqdn.fr/videos/watch/861c07f7-7e9b-4e64-9765-cf1de592c8a0 in which Aral explains the problem to the European Parliament.
I couldn't agree more with what he said.
I wish I could explain it so clearly and concisely.
I recently tried to explain centralized vs decentralized to a friend after mentioning Mastodon as being some kind of decentralized Twitter.
I'm doubtful whether that person understood it enough to explain it to someone else.
I had difficulties explaining federation today to someone who uses e-mail as one of their main communication channels. I don't understand what makes it so hard to understand, but it's a recurring issue.
Of course it's simpler to have Company X own protocol X, run the exclusive server for X, and thus handle all users of X -- but people do know e-mail, so why is this so hard, even to those who know a world before Gmail?
I think that most people aren't interested in how technology works, but do ofc use it.
Likewise, most ppl use email but have no idea how it works and can only configure an email client by following a detailed step-by-step guide, with pictures.
The person I explained it to doesn't care about tech, so I kept it strictly to centralized vs decentralized as that was the core of the issue I tried to explain. No further details (federated vs p2p) as that would only be confusing.
What I meant is that just the concept of a federated service itself, which predates Facebook or Google and is still used by more people than Facebook ... there's something about it which seems to turn people off, long before it gets to the actual doing.
Note that it very much depends on the person you're talking to.
I actually meant that it's not "don't like to", but "don't know/understand how to". For many people tech is like magic.
~ related: https://x0f.org/@FreePietje/104687084180771828
I love the whole episode, but the interaction between Oliver and Snowden was illuminating for me.
Around 24min: "Don't teach me anything. I don't want to learn. You smell like canned soup"
I've gotten the impression that it applies to a LOT of people wrt IT.
That's why I like those video's by Aral so much.
In the first one, he explains in <3 minutes what the problem is without any tech jargon. I think my friend would understand that. (Changing behavior is another matter though.)
The 2nd one is for a different audience and I deliberately linked to the one with slides/pictures as that really helped to explain the differences.
Being concise is a always a problem for me and I rarely have a great analogy ready, which would've helped.
oooh yes, I remember that episode :)
And I completely get his attitude, although slightly exaggerated for comic effect.
You *cannot* understand all the things in your life. You *must* choose what to engage with and what not, consciously or otherwise. All us "I wanna understand everything" and "why don't people pay attention" types are just not noticing the million other things *we* don't recognize as relevantm even after spending huge amounts of time researching stuff ...
...but I still expected basically every user of e-mail to instantly recognize how a communication network can be run by different independent providers. Maybe not some of the younger people who never knew anything but Gmail, but pretty much everyone else.
That I am wrong about this shows that there's something I don't understand -- but it's still rather quite annoying, if I may say so. Even more annoying that many don't seem to see advantage to federation.
I really do understand what you mean and where you're coming from as I've felt/acted the same for quite a while.
But I've seen too many times people 'glaze over' that I've now swung over to the other end: I assume that people don't want/care to know.
If I, despite that, get the feeling that the person might want to know more, I just straight up ask and also say that 'no' is a perfectly good answer.
It has resulted for me in less stress/frustration :)
Is there any plan to shift https://github.com/small-tech/site.js away from #GAFAM? Strongly encouraging people to move away from that particular centralised authoritarian corporate website might help to clarify the message of the "small web"... The "M in #GAFAM" is a temporary compromise for many of us, like voting for Chirac with a peg on our noses in 2002.
@boud @ReverseEagle @codeberg @disroot Hi man, good question :) Our canonical repositories are all at https://source.small-tech.org. We use Github to mirror/publish our repositories so they can be (a) discovered by more people (b) so that people can open issues and pull requests (we have no intention of making source.small-tech.org yet another silo by accepting developer accounts there). Eventually, my goal is to have p2p hosted Git via our Small Web initiative. But lots to do before that :)
Good to see that your main git repository is self-hosted. :)
So now my suggestion is to make this info a bit more obvious to those who are puzzled like me - maybe in the profile at https://github.com/small-tech ?
I put an icon at my profile at
https://github.com/broukema to try to encourage degithubisation.
Whether your git strategy is the best or not is a different question; I'll leave that wider debate to anyone interested. I don't have all the answers...
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!