Notices by Mayel - ghost account (mayel@social.coop), page 110

@mayel @cykros @gracie @ebel @alanz

Very true. Going decentralized (federated or better distributed) is great, but we must remember the cause we're doing it for.

Cryptocurrencies meanwhile tend to be the extreme of forgetting the cause: they (with few exceptions) just make the privacy problem worse at the cost of slow performance.

@alcinnz @gracie @ebel @mayel @alanz

The big difference there is, they're open standards. As such, any Debian contributor could choose to take what's been made, fork it, and make something out of it (such as Devuan, Ubuntu, or any of the derivative distributions), regardless of what the community wants to do. That is decidedly not true of centralized projects such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. One takes contributions and puts them in a pool, the other takes contributions and locks them up.

"The modern profusion of things that are collective without being state-dependent (...) attests to people’s talent for making things happen; and the solutions they come up with tend to have deeper roots than most things imposed from the top."

A testament to the strength of #cooperative movements around the world, I guess. If the left is to survive the neo-nazi tide, it better embrace coops ASAP

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/jobs-left-automation-power

@aral @ntnsndr @mayel @ekaitz_zarraga

What do we mean by decentralised git remotes? Might be missing something, but in my mind it's not setting up git remotes that's an issue, more the easy forking, pull requests, discussion on issues, that kind of thing, right? git remotes can already be decentralised, kind of the raison d'etre of a DVCS, I can set one up on any server. But github has locked people in with their 'value adds' and network effort, classic anti-disintermediation.

@ebel @mayel @alanz @cykros

not even convinced it's centralisation that's the core problem; i mean savannah is a silo, the debian repos are a centralised resource …

the problem's capitalism, as usu, corporatisation rather than centralisation

me: *sees cool new anonymous service*
me: ok cool but like
me: how will it be abused by harassers tho lol

This whole ICO craze has me seriously tempted to put my most ambitious life plans into a whitepaper, slap together a Bootstrap website, promise to blog about my progress/open source any software I build to realize my goals, then sell a thousand NolanCoins to raise money. I'm simultaneously half serious, half desperate, and a lot terrified that it'd actually work, leaving me stuck figuring out WTH I'd do with my questionably-gotten millions.

@ebel @mayel @alanz @cykros
We already know how to do this is the point. A mailing list is federated. We could see these things coming, which is why there was a concern about gcc adopting a plugin api for example. I think we've gotten too used to corporate sponsored floss as the new normal and it's normalised a sort of consumer experience simulacrum of cooperation. We managed to create things like git without things like github.

@gracie @ebel @cykros @alanz @mayel

Yes we had libre versions. And what happened? It says to hard and complicated and there was money in controlling and centralising it, so that's what happened. The thing with the counter anti dis intermiatisation is to make tools that are impossible to centralise. We should learn from what happened.

@mayel @alanz @cykros @Framasoft I've recently found out about "Anti-Disintermediatization" where formerly decentralized tools were centralize-able, and hence were centralized. Kleiner suggest we make tools which *cannot* be centralized, where they only run on your local machine.

Which (IMO) is a fascinating new perspective (for me)