Any laws passed to "regulate" big tech will in actuality be written by big tech with the goal of preventing competition and criminalizing participation in decentralization.
It's been done through countless industries, mainly to put limits on competition. Like the whole net neutrality thing, look what companies supported it. That will tell you everything.
If UA-cam, Facebook, Google, Twitter can ban people for speech they don't like, then they MUST be held accountable for speech they allow. They can't have it both ways.
Except if you do that, they'll just say that only trusted curators will be allowed to make content. This is one of those things that sounds nice in principle but really will do more harm than good in practice.
@@BlueAxeRacer Except if they do that, they will paint themselves into a corner, become less relevant and will make it easier for other platforms to cater to niche audiences. This is one of those things that sounds bad in principle but really will do more good than harm.
@@AncientMarinerNY Highly doubt so since it means they can pick and choose their most PR-friendly and profitable influencers while alternative social media goes under because they don't have the resources to fight libel cases which they are now liable for.
@@BlueAxeRacer Highly doubt it. The reason old media lost to the internet is because they were always forced to pick and choose the most PR-friendly and profitable shows for the limited time slots. UA-cam was alternative at some point with a ton of niche channels for all - the demand is there. They are the centralized giants now. If they want to be a gloried Cable TV with a few thousand channels like NBC, TYT, Cocomelon and Marques Brownlee then let them - heck, let them even hold the biggest market share. New alternative media is already being created, and even better, they are being created on the decentralized web. All we need is access, we don't even need to be the biggest fish in the ocean. And, if they have no power to control the content then they cannot be sued for libel. Let centralized apps choose if they want to ban people for speech they don't like and also deal with suits that come afterwards for being a publisher. A fit-for-all centralized platform without censorship is not possible.
@@AncientMarinerNY So where do you go for alternatives if the alternatives are stuck in legal tape trying not to get sued? You cannot completely get rid of editorial content on social media otherwise they wouldn't be able to provide a good experience, so why not regulate what people can say and who can say it even more? What you have to understand is that this is going to affect every platform the same, but the likes of Facebook and Google have enough lawyers to keep the rules in their favour.
@solaroid55 They have NO IDEA what decentralized means. The belief is that all those who comment on YT always have the foggiest idea what they're talking about...
are replies comments made by AI? they seem not connected to the first. I agree I think at least many of them don't really understand peer 2 peer networks their capabilities. the thing is to have a peer 2 peer internet able to bypass a ISP it means really every house has to be on board and the houses have to have the hardware to communicate with the next house. great in a tightly packed city, great in a tech savvy area, great in a rich area where every one can afford the best equipment to keep it going at usable speeds. stopping at each house before you get to the guy that's in wifi range of the company where the web page you want to visit can be a long trip. this is why people need to be paying attention to making things as low bandwidth accessible. that's what the video was talking about a decentralized internet no ISP right? I am going to name drop B.A.T.M.A.N en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.A.T.M.A.N. even tho it's a bit out of date.
Antitrust law is a joke. So here's an antitrust joke: there are three prisoners in the federal penitentiary They were all in jail for economic crimes of violating monopoly laws. First guy said that he had charged higher prices than anyone else and the government then accused him of price gouging and profiteering. Second guy charged lower prices than anyone else and they accused him of predatory and cutthroat pricing. And the third guy said that he charged the same prices as everyone else and they accused him of collusion and price fixing. this law can be used to do ANYTHING the feds would like it to do.
Monopolies can only exist when government acts in their favor. Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc wield the power they have thanks to their government connections through the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.
Social media's worth comes from it's userbase. The larger it is, the more it attracts. It's a positive feedback loop, it snowballs. Even if people could be in all sites at once only at the very most 20% of people would check all of them assuming the content type is the same. Even if two or more sites of the same content have equal userbases, with time even a slight superiority can turn into absolute supremacy. I propose a user limit law that would limit a website to a limited number of individuals as to force the user to branch out. This idea kinda stinks, because it forces an individual to pick a website which may be... *_[you know what scratch this idea it would just make a lot of small monopolies that physically can't compete with eachover]_* (that's what you get when you type and think at the same time lol) Perhaps allow an individual only to join a limited amount of websites, but that would require an identification to be used or even a federal account of sorts, and this has got authoritarian enough already. I'm out of ideas on that one, but I gave it my best shot.
What study validates this theory? Is there any hope of ever having a rational discussion without it devolving into some sort of conspiracy theory or rant against Authority and institutions?
He founded the Free Software Foundation, which--in addition to starting the political movement bearing its name, as the video says--wrote far more of the operating system that everyone calls "Linux" than the actual Linux project itself ever did. Interestingly enough, Stallman himself would be the first to enthusiastically agree with your phrasing--since he refuses to use the unadorned name "Linux" to refer to anything beyond the kernel that Linus himself, and not the FSF, contributed. But, again, that's not how the vast majority of the public uses the word when they say "Linux," so the piece is correct on any ordinary use of language. If Stallman would be mad at anything in the wording, though, it might be that the phrase "Open Source" was mentioned anywhere in the same sentence as him and the FSF!
11:37 "We want to have checks on their authority and one of the ways you get checks on someone's authority is by allowing the people who live under that authority is to go somewhere else." I support Secession.
The usual check on governmental authority in America has been federalism, i.e. keeping the federal government distant and weak, with limited prerogatives. And let states compete with each other and have their rules and regulations in most areas of life.
No tech doesn't...if you look at all product iterations of any major tech company, you quickly realize they release half-assed incremental improvements to their product. Take for example computer monitors of today and compare them to monitors just 5 or so years ago...BARELY NO IMPROVEMENTS. Markets, just like companies, are corrupted. Capitalist are con-artists.
@@sartwon No doubt about it, and it's even worse. "Corporations" in authoritarian governments are literally part of the gov...there's no way they would even operate if they don't serv gov...if gov corrupted, so are they. They're just bigger and more powerful con-artists if that makes sense...
fthis1234567, ja the phrase too big to fail is a hoax. The Chicons as AJ says, have raised the stakes in corruption. Now, gov. like Trudeau’s try to pass non punitive consequences onto Corps for severe criminality. They’re complied to bec the Chinese communists fascists are out bribing all western companies that generally have, in the past, been law bidding. The rule of law has no weight if there’s no morality. And that’s impossible if gov. is set up as a top down elitist monster.
@@bellch87 that is one of the biggests economics mith ever created. There were gazilions other companies in the oil business and by the way, as far as i can tell there was a fucking goverment at the time.
@@steelmongoose4956 Actually they're both collectivists. That's the common ideological strain. Conservatives view people as individuals who should be left alone by government. Socialists and fascists believe the state is the supreme authority and must manage its denizens as fungible resources.
" EASIER to call Zuckerberg" Hmm I echo the words of a great man now. " someone who trades freedom for security is a fool and deserves neither" I say we decentralize whether we have someone to blame for our problems or not.
They are talking about a hub based network vs peer to peer. Sounds like a lot of coding to make it work worldwide but it's no new idea. Limewire did it in 2005.
I was thinking the same thing: sounds like bit torrent. And authentication via blockchain will help speed things up, along with multiple copies of everything so you're not pulling data or code from wildly disparate places. The good news is that storage is cheap now, so the cost of running a node on such a storage network would be negligible.
What we need is for social networking to be like email: you can move your content to a new provider, and share messages between different providers that speak a common protocol.
ttthttpd Yes a common standard of basic features that could be verified. No more secretly silencing voices or you just move to a better service provider that has a better reputation
@Indigo Rodent MediaGoblin developed by FSF affiliates, and the general field of "federated protocols" are close approximates. Also Discord, Mastodon and co. are starting to grow into their own as alternative paradigms to monolithic social networks.
@@lr7815 Yeah distributed tech is just the future, especially for finances (via cryptocurrency) and large networks like IPFS, but people have a hard time understanding how it works so it's going to take a minute to catch on.
when I first started using computers all we had were decentralized local domains (local boards), with a local person running a small server for everyone else (dial-in) - mainly played games and did a lot of localized geeky chatting about the most current hardware and programming - and a monthly meet at the local bowling ally, lol (1985ish)
The web should be decentralized. It was ment to be this way. A place where no corporation nor goverment shall control where you go and what you do.The web shall go to how it was in the early 2000s.
@@bbgun061 In heavily cartel-ized industry, the anti-trust actions protect against new companies creating competition .The good things done by anti-trust only exist in academic models .
That isn't Richard Stallman in the picture. I really hate to mention it again for the nth time, but Richard didn't help create Linux. He founded the GNU Project which created a complete operating system. At the time, Linux was in dire need of an operating system, and so they adopted the gnu tool set.
All google has to do is change their search algorithm and all the sudden your SEO is invalid and your company goes under while you struggle to figure out what is in that black box. Small businesses struggle to even start up.
Too late, Meanwhile, The Surveillance State is a Permanent feature of today’s society. The kids know it. We must divest from these giant authoritarian business models ASAP. Frankensteinian Legislations must end As well as the Anti-trust regulation must be observed‼️
3 years on and I'm not seeing any real progress. The big companies are deplatforming more people than ever and the new rules about regulating what you can say mean even more barriers to entry for startups.
These tech companies are huge because people keep using their product mindlessly. Choices are there and you can actually find alternative, just put the energy to find it.
I was thinking this just today, that monetization is pulling all information into UA-cam, thereby reducing the quality and means of getting information. Why host a passion project website when you can get that cheap views money. Google search is now just a glorified billboard. Can't even get an image that isn't watermarked.
Thank you for walking the talk people,men and women of the land,standing tall with truth,being responsible through self thinking,learning,plus teaching were truth is born and freedom.History is a hard teacher,bravo to all self thinkers.!!!
Governments in the USA, no longer feel they have to abide by OUR Constitution hence "Sanctuary Towns, Cities, State" where those governments totally ignore one of the very few Constitutionally MANDATED functions of OUR government: "Protecting our borders". Governments feel free to violate the ONLY right in the Bill of Rights or anyplace else in our Constitution which contains the phrase: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". They violate this right to the point where it now varies state to state. Show me any other Amendment/Right which varies state to state.
I left in 2010. It wasn't hard to do at all. The real eye opener though was when I realized who my true friends were. I.E. people who would actually call or come by. I can count them on one hand...........
My idea of decentralization is making your own internet providers with a link to the internet, but its own private network separate from the internet which does not follow rules or principals we are all restricted to follow. Wouldn't it be great to have a free interchange of data between people as fast as your local interface goes, without spying eyes? That in my opinion would be decentralized. The internet is too controlled and restricted.
My dumbass assumed the web is always decentralized... but, of course, Big Brother would never allow it. Any solution to this problem would have to be fundamental. A symptomatic approach will change nothing... The IPFS solution seems appealing. And all efforts at decentralization presented are improvements upon the Big Tech (Government aided) rule of internet that we have now.
Need to end Internet Gate Keepers. Computer scientists in Brazil were designing an alternative Internet that runs completely on private peoples computers.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
There are two out there already. Bitchute and NicoNico, the latter of which is a Japanese site that has a unique commenting system where viewers can post comments that appear on the video itself at specific points.
@@NexAngelus405 not a fan of bitchute because it has the same marketing strategies as gab, and it doesnt offer any better features. Ill take a look at niconico
There's also LBRY and Brighteon. But you're not going to find "better features" anywhere while these things are in their infancy and Goolag is willing to piss money away at UA-cam
A better Internet can happen, for instance if a portion of Top teir peering ISP access were made available for the public and the "little guys" who don't own all the infrastructure.
I wish this was the future but I'm extremely skeptical. Countries like China and South Korea have technology that can block proxy servers in addition to filtering content and monitoring everybody, which is the opposite of this.
You lost me at Decentralized Web. It makes no sense, the internet is decentralized, that's why they call it the world wide web. because it's a series of interconnected networks.
I call BS on this whole 'centralized' nonesense...At one time people thought AOL was the internet... Today it's facebook n' google.....Nothing lasts...
@Tech420P As far as I can tell, the url window is still open text on any browser I know of... History is nothing but people with resources applying 'algorithms' to get people to do things... There's nothing new under the sun brother. (psssst....change your home page)
When you watch zukerberg testifying before congress around 10:15 in, he looks and speaks like Data from star trek, the next generation. I think with all his billions he became a cyborg at some point.
This happened before when they did "trust" busting, which in fact made them(the people that owned the trusts) even more wealthy. Everyone in government is already owned.
Is coming? The web (world wide web...aka www) is designed to be decentralized and is implemented that way. Just because most people go to one site doesn't mean it is "centralized"... I feel like the research for this video had a headline and they were grasping for decentralization...wedging it where it didn't belong. I wouldn't call retail "centralized" due to Amazon's dominance. Maybe it should be called "The Competitive Web Is Coming".
Yes it looks like these days you can only get an audience to speak about something you don't really understand. The decentralisation is needed for applications and services instead. A project is underway to achieve just that, please join and spread the word. www.kickstarter.com/projects/146870811/waga-the-universal-software?ref=b9ayuc. or contact me 1 819 410 06 20
Forget the anti trust laws, remove them completely. The solution is to remove all intellectual property laws too Both actions will aid greatly in a decentralized internet and is compatible with libertarian/anarchist/voluntaryist/capitalist views It goes without saying that this will be an enormous victory for liberty worldwide
Yes applications and services offered on the internet need to be decentralised instead. A project is underway for that purpose. please join and spread the word or contact me 1 819 410 06 20 www.kickstarter.com/projects/146870811/waga-the-universal-software?ref=b9ayuc
All your computers are compromised because DNS requests haven't been encrypted but rather sent "in the clear". This has allowed websites to be spoofedand malware/spyware to be inserted into your computers. DNS over TLS is a solution but you will need to reprogram all computers by hand using the source code to eradicate the malware/spyware which has infected them during the time DNS requests were not encrypted.
Pr3pp3r Chan Not subservience. Prosperity and entrepreneurship. Yes some will use it to consume But not everyone will be so subsumed A people enabled to spend and be ingenuitive. In this time everyone can be given ample time to thrive.
*@Populist Libertarian* you’re right to be skeptical, we’re still not there yet. But we are indeed closer. Some of the core ideas are not only technically doable, they’ve already been done. Though we need a lot more than just core stuff before the masses will have any reason to care. There are still many gaps on that end. BitTorrent, bitcoin, ethereum, streemit, IPFS, etc, these are all important visible steps towards a decentralized future ecosystem. It still has a ways to go in my eyes, though if there was enough pressure this could be accelerated dramatically. It’s amazing how productive geeks can be when sufficiently motivated - weaponized autism. :)
I think this is the most fascinating question for right leaning people. We're hesitant towards government intervention but see the benefit. Constant questions around this topic
Regulation on the internet compies will have short term benefits but long term detrements. Everything the government touches turns to shit eventually. I choose more open internet.
Cory Doctorow had it right at the beginning. The real problem is the government, intellectual property being just one example of government structures that make up the foundation of our corporatist society. Where he goes wrong is further government intervention with anti-trust law, that is just shit on shit. It's just a fresh coat of paint on rotting walls.
I think I saw something, somewhere, that said that the decentralization (or break up) of bigger companies only made them stronger as it broke them up into "independent" pieces which were harder to investigate and regulate.. anybody reading this has ever heard of that?
@Sith'ari Azithoth one example is Standard Oil, in 1880 it controlled most oil, but it then was broken up by an antitrust lawsuit. The pieces changed names, had different leaders, but where still interconnected. So it really didn't have the desired effect and separate efforts would be needed to investigate each. You also have the same effect with AT&T and big tobacco. You can read more about it here: www.americanactionforum.org/insight/a-history-of-failure-government-imposed-corporate-breakups/ It's like the hydra dragon, you cut one head off and instead of only growing another, the dragon's head that was cut off grows a new body. If from 100 locations, you only need to address one lawsuit, regulation, investigation towards that group(company), it's one step. But if you break it up and give a new name and faces to each piece, then it's harder to take one step and figure them all out. Regulation is the way to go.
Any laws passed to "regulate" big tech will in actuality be written by big tech with the goal of preventing competition and criminalizing participation in decentralization.
That's pretty much how the bankers took over..
@@gligo7586 more like the how the gov nationalized the banking industry
They can blame capitalism all they want but the real evil happens in the lobby. Term limits and anti-lobbying should be added to the constitution.
It's been done through countless industries, mainly to put limits on competition. Like the whole net neutrality thing, look what companies supported it. That will tell you everything.
Generally what happens when the government tries to solve epic social problems with “well-intentioned” regulation.
If UA-cam, Facebook, Google, Twitter can ban people for speech they don't like, then they MUST be held accountable for speech they allow. They can't have it both ways.
Except if you do that, they'll just say that only trusted curators will be allowed to make content. This is one of those things that sounds nice in principle but really will do more harm than good in practice.
@@BlueAxeRacer Except if they do that, they will paint themselves into a corner, become less relevant and will make it easier for other platforms to cater to niche audiences. This is one of those things that sounds bad in principle but really will do more good than harm.
@@AncientMarinerNY Highly doubt so since it means they can pick and choose their most PR-friendly and profitable influencers while alternative social media goes under because they don't have the resources to fight libel cases which they are now liable for.
@@BlueAxeRacer Highly doubt it. The reason old media lost to the internet is because they were always forced to pick and choose the most PR-friendly and profitable shows for the limited time slots. UA-cam was alternative at some point with a ton of niche channels for all - the demand is there. They are the centralized giants now. If they want to be a gloried Cable TV with a few thousand channels like NBC, TYT, Cocomelon and Marques Brownlee then let them - heck, let them even hold the biggest market share. New alternative media is already being created, and even better, they are being created on the decentralized web. All we need is access, we don't even need to be the biggest fish in the ocean. And, if they have no power to control the content then they cannot be sued for libel. Let centralized apps choose if they want to ban people for speech they don't like and also deal with suits that come afterwards for being a publisher. A fit-for-all centralized platform without censorship is not possible.
@@AncientMarinerNY So where do you go for alternatives if the alternatives are stuck in legal tape trying not to get sued? You cannot completely get rid of editorial content on social media otherwise they wouldn't be able to provide a good experience, so why not regulate what people can say and who can say it even more? What you have to understand is that this is going to affect every platform the same, but the likes of Facebook and Google have enough lawyers to keep the rules in their favour.
A decentralized web means ultimate freedom on the web.
Until the next thing.
Word
WWG1WGA 💜🗝🎯
@solaroid55 They have NO IDEA what decentralized means.
The belief is that all those who comment on YT always have the foggiest idea what they're talking about...
are replies comments made by AI? they seem not connected to the first. I agree I think at least many of them don't really understand peer 2 peer networks their capabilities. the thing is to have a peer 2 peer internet able to bypass a ISP it means really every house has to be on board and the houses have to have the hardware to communicate with the next house. great in a tightly packed city, great in a tech savvy area, great in a rich area where every one can afford the best equipment to keep it going at usable speeds. stopping at each house before you get to the guy that's in wifi range of the company where the web page you want to visit can be a long trip. this is why people need to be paying attention to making things as low bandwidth accessible. that's what the video was talking about a decentralized internet no ISP right? I am going to name drop B.A.T.M.A.N en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.A.T.M.A.N. even tho it's a bit out of date.
Pretty Meta that I have to watch this on a platform owned by one of the biggest abusers and mis-users of Centralized Internet.
David Piper Steven crowder?
@@wearejungians what about him?
well the algorithm pretty much doesn't censor unleashed human counterpart gets involved
Antitrust law is a joke.
So here's an antitrust joke:
there are three prisoners in the federal penitentiary
They were all in jail for economic crimes of violating monopoly laws.
First guy said that he had charged higher prices than anyone else and the government then accused him of price gouging and profiteering.
Second guy charged lower prices than anyone else and they accused him of predatory and cutthroat pricing.
And the third guy said that he charged the same prices as everyone else and they accused him of collusion and price fixing.
this law can be used to do ANYTHING the feds would like it to do.
Good joke.
except... fb, google, and twitter are all free.
bad joke
David Diemert Data is the new oil. Nothing is free.
I agree with you. I still think it's a bad joke.
Andy K. The feds are something else !!! They have there hands in everything,,,
Monopolies can only exist when government acts in their favor. Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc wield the power they have thanks to their government connections through the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.
Social media's worth comes from it's userbase. The larger it is, the more it attracts. It's a positive feedback loop, it snowballs. Even if people could be in all sites at once only at the very most 20% of people would check all of them assuming the content type is the same. Even if two or more sites of the same content have equal userbases, with time even a slight superiority can turn into absolute supremacy.
I propose a user limit law that would limit a website to a limited number of individuals as to force the user to branch out.
This idea kinda stinks, because it forces an individual to pick a website which may be... *_[you know what scratch this idea it would just make a lot of small monopolies that physically can't compete with eachover]_* (that's what you get when you type and think at the same time lol)
Perhaps allow an individual only to join a limited amount of websites, but that would require an identification to be used or even a federal account of sorts, and this has got authoritarian enough already.
I'm out of ideas on that one, but I gave it my best shot.
jcllings I’ve had all sorts argue with me, tell me I’m wrong, etc. you’re the first to try attaching tinfoil and fedoras.
Well more factually monopolies are quite rare without government interference
Yeah and they have broke our laws together so maybe we should revoke their charter
What study validates this theory? Is there any hope of ever having a rational discussion without it devolving into some sort of conspiracy theory or rant against Authority and institutions?
STATE Enforced Net Neutrality/Speech Equity is to free & open internet as PATRIOT Act is to Patriotism.
Long live decentralization.
Stallman didn't create Linux. He started the GNU project. Linus Torvalds created Linux.
The quote was "helped create".
He founded the Free Software Foundation, which--in addition to starting the political movement bearing its name, as the video says--wrote far more of the operating system that everyone calls "Linux" than the actual Linux project itself ever did.
Interestingly enough, Stallman himself would be the first to enthusiastically agree with your phrasing--since he refuses to use the unadorned name "Linux" to refer to anything beyond the kernel that Linus himself, and not the FSF, contributed. But, again, that's not how the vast majority of the public uses the word when they say "Linux," so the piece is correct on any ordinary use of language.
If Stallman would be mad at anything in the wording, though, it might be that the phrase "Open Source" was mentioned anywhere in the same sentence as him and the FSF!
@Gordon Imagine it yourself. We're having a conversation about the history of software development.
Arguably he took it from Torvald's pet kernel to an actual serious project.
Stallman... Stallmin... Stalmin... Stalin! 😱
11:37 "We want to have checks on their authority and one of the ways you get checks on someone's authority is by allowing the people who live under that authority is to go somewhere else."
I support Secession.
Which state do you support secession of?
@Jesus Christ There are legal ways for individual states to secede. I think it requires the agreement of two thirds of the states.
The usual check on governmental authority in America has been federalism, i.e. keeping the federal government distant and weak, with limited prerogatives. And let states compete with each other and have their rules and regulations in most areas of life.
@@nonmagicmike723 Every one.
@@nonmagicmike723 That's a complete fantasy. The federal government was never distant and weak.
Some say tech advances too quickly, while some things like authoritarian zealots never change.
No tech doesn't...if you look at all product iterations of any major tech company, you quickly realize they release half-assed incremental improvements to their product. Take for example computer monitors of today and compare them to monitors just 5 or so years ago...BARELY NO IMPROVEMENTS. Markets, just like companies, are corrupted. Capitalist are con-artists.
Hmm so authoritarians are capitalists and con artists?
@@sartwon No doubt about it, and it's even worse. "Corporations" in authoritarian governments are literally part of the gov...there's no way they would even operate if they don't serv gov...if gov corrupted, so are they. They're just bigger and more powerful con-artists if that makes sense...
fthis1234567, ja the phrase too big to fail is a hoax. The Chicons as AJ says, have raised the stakes in corruption. Now, gov. like Trudeau’s try to pass non punitive consequences onto Corps for severe criminality. They’re complied to bec the Chinese communists fascists are out bribing all western companies that generally have, in the past, been law bidding. The rule of law has no weight if there’s no morality. And that’s impossible if gov. is set up as a top down elitist monster.
@@fthis1234567 You think you'd have nice things under commie control?
Monopolies cannot exist without a government to protect them from competition.
You know nothing about history...without restraints they eat each other until 1 or very few exist...assume property rights are entrenched.
Bruno Pereira
"Web Search" or just "Search" takes same breath or less as "google"
What study validates this theory?
@@bellch87 that is one of the biggests economics mith ever created. There were gazilions other companies in the oil business and by the way, as far as i can tell there was a fucking goverment at the time.
Bruno Pereira - You smart. Thumbs up on your comment!!!
Well, I was kind of hoping for a revolution that ended up with certain heads on pikes at the city gates, but decentralization is cool, too.
A revolution against whom?
@@nonmagicmike723 Against...them.
Ah, I see, fascist or socialist?
@@sujimayne Fascists *are* socialists.
@@steelmongoose4956 Actually they're both collectivists. That's the common ideological strain. Conservatives view people as individuals who should be left alone by government. Socialists and fascists believe the state is the supreme authority and must manage its denizens as fungible resources.
" EASIER to call Zuckerberg"
Hmm I echo the words of a great man now. " someone who trades freedom for security is a fool and deserves neither" I say we decentralize whether we have someone to blame for our problems or not.
I'd rather die a free man, than live as a comfortable slave.
@@iviaverick52 except , near we are.
@P 7 5 D you choose to be part of.
Facebook admitted they are a publisher. They can be sued for defamation of us normal citizens!
To be fair we left the point of being truly free a LONG time ago lol
I predict that the bastardization of intellectual property laws will one day bite the abusers squarely in the ass.
I'm in, let's do this.
Then please join this project and spread the word. www.kickstarter.com/projects/146870811/waga-the-universal-software?ref=b9ayuc
ThankU ..
Good video. Decentralized internet it's the best
ua-cam.com/video/YFwTabn9_S0/v-deo.html
Make the system harder to break rather than just tell people not to break it
They are talking about a hub based network vs peer to peer. Sounds like a lot of coding to make it work worldwide but it's no new idea. Limewire did it in 2005.
@Jesus Christ that's a good point. Validating you're getting the original file/page also becomes an issue as does handling updates to a page or file.
I was thinking the same thing: sounds like bit torrent.
And authentication via blockchain will help speed things up, along with multiple copies of everything so you're not pulling data or code from wildly disparate places. The good news is that storage is cheap now, so the cost of running a node on such a storage network would be negligible.
I'm cool with slower internet. I got fiber so I could host whatever.
Inter planetary file system. IPFS
Where is limewire and frostwire now? Where piratebay is going to be going in the future.
What we need is for social networking to be like email: you can move your content to a new provider, and share messages between different providers that speak a common protocol.
ttthttpd
Yes a common standard of basic features that could be verified. No more secretly silencing voices or you just move to a better service provider that has a better reputation
@Indigo Rodent MediaGoblin developed by FSF affiliates, and the general field of "federated protocols" are close approximates.
Also Discord, Mastodon and co. are starting to grow into their own as alternative paradigms to monolithic social networks.
This is the closest we have got so far to a complete free market.
UA-cam: we're a platform not a publisher
Also UA-cam: the g***m know, shut it down!
The tit-for-tat game theory square does not work in google's "altruistic" system...
Is that you, George Gilder?
Hello fella libertarian
Where's Pied Piper when we need it?
Dick to Floor tech
@@lr7815 Yeah distributed tech is just the future, especially for finances (via cryptocurrency) and large networks like IPFS, but people have a hard time understanding how it works so it's going to take a minute to catch on.
It’s the safenetwork. Look it up people and join the growing community
I was under the impression that that many people have already left Facebook.
I thought about making an account when it was new. I concluded it would be a waste of time, or be a disaster.
when I first started using computers all we had were decentralized local domains (local boards), with a local person running a small server for everyone else (dial-in) - mainly played games and did a lot of localized geeky chatting about the most current hardware and programming - and a monthly meet at the local bowling ally, lol (1985ish)
You know what needs decentralization? US GOVCO. Local > global.
The web should be decentralized. It was ment to be this way. A place where no corporation nor goverment shall control where you go and what you do.The web shall go to how it was in the early 2000s.
Anti-trust hurts consumers and enriches politicians.
abram galler How?
@@bbgun061 In heavily cartel-ized industry, the anti-trust actions protect against new companies creating competition .The good things done by anti-trust only exist in academic models .
@@matthewbennett631 Government suppresses competition and adds to the cost of most goods and services .
@@matthewbennett631 Government never intervenes to to create "space for competition" although they may lie to that affect .
That isn't Richard Stallman in the picture.
I really hate to mention it again for the nth time, but Richard didn't help create Linux. He founded the GNU Project which created a complete operating system. At the time, Linux was in dire need of an operating system, and so they adopted the gnu tool set.
All google has to do is change their search algorithm and all the sudden your SEO is invalid and your company goes under while you struggle to figure out what is in that black box. Small businesses struggle to even start up.
DarkSide Blues that’s why it’s wise to not depend on any one search engine to get revenue in the door.
DrScream except google is the majority and some other search engines just mimic or use google straight under the hood. But I get what you are saying.
Google needs to burn.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Social media decentralized will coming soon and you will get paid for using it, you will see it. Satoshi change everything.
Too late,
Meanwhile,
The Surveillance State is a
Permanent feature of today’s society.
The kids know it.
We must divest from these giant authoritarian business models ASAP.
Frankensteinian Legislations must end
As well as the Anti-trust regulation must be observed‼️
That “Trumps Last Day” sticker is a big yikes
John
1:24
We only have a limited time to share truth, lets go!
Thank you for this ☆♡☆
Decentralizing the web I feel would be the best way to go.
3 years on and I'm not seeing any real progress. The big companies are deplatforming more people than ever and the new rules about regulating what you can say mean even more barriers to entry for startups.
2.4 billion daily users, is because apps login 15 times in an hour on mobile and web sometimes. There are not that many people that use Facebook.
Yes, it seems facebook is more a like a background service, not so much used anymore for socialsing
These tech companies are huge because people keep using their product mindlessly. Choices are there and you can actually find alternative, just put the energy to find it.
The 2nd largest search engine on earth is UA-cam.
I was thinking this just today, that monetization is pulling all information into UA-cam, thereby reducing the quality and means of getting information. Why host a passion project website when you can get that cheap views money. Google search is now just a glorified billboard. Can't even get an image that isn't watermarked.
@Crystal Tuttie Cox that's not what I'm getting at. There's a deliberate algo hiding all the CC or similarly licensed images.
Thank you for walking the talk people,men and women of the land,standing tall with truth,being responsible through self thinking,learning,plus teaching were truth is born and freedom.History is a hard teacher,bravo to all self thinkers.!!!
Nice! I would love to see decentralized government restrained with the chains of the Constitution.....
Governments in the USA, no longer feel they have to abide by OUR Constitution hence "Sanctuary Towns, Cities, State" where those governments totally ignore one of the very few Constitutionally MANDATED functions of OUR government: "Protecting our borders". Governments feel free to violate the ONLY right in the Bill of Rights or anyplace else in our Constitution which contains the phrase: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". They violate this right to the point where it now varies state to state. Show me any other Amendment/Right which varies state to state.
decentralize everything!
" I remember when no internet existed & I would live just fine if the Internet just disappeared tomorrow. I'll sleep just fine. ☮ "
No you wouldn't , there would be choas.
@@IakonaWayne ..starting with no spell check.
Lol chaos.
I remember when we lived in the stone age. I ain't going back, I'd rather be out colonizing space.
I left Facebook back in 2013 and I've never missed it!
I left in 2010. It wasn't hard to do at all. The real eye opener though was when I realized who my true friends were. I.E. people who would actually call or come by. I can count them on one hand...........
God, I hope so.
Awesome!!! Been praying for this for a long time!
More censorship I want my internet back when it first started.free and open
Every attorney who has examined the Digital Millenium Copyright statute has found it to be unconstitutional.
Couple this with the fact that major cities are expanding in size in America. I'm getting Cyberpunk vibes!
good thing i live out in bum fuck no where
My idea of decentralization is making your own internet providers with a link to the internet, but its own private network separate from the internet which does not follow rules or principals we are all restricted to follow. Wouldn't it be great to have a free interchange of data between people as fast as your local interface goes, without spying eyes? That in my opinion would be decentralized. The internet is too controlled and restricted.
There's a LOT of good projects out there like ipfs, Dat protocol, etc. There's so much to look forward to.
Beaker browser. Hyperdrive. Dissenter browser.
This entire subject is WAAAAAAAY beyond most folks. They don't care. They don't know.
Good intro for IPFS to record content, but should also mention blockchain for recording immutable transactional activity.
My dumbass assumed the web is always decentralized... but, of course, Big Brother would never allow it.
Any solution to this problem would have to be fundamental. A symptomatic approach will change nothing...
The IPFS solution seems appealing. And all efforts at decentralization presented are improvements upon the Big Tech (Government aided) rule of internet that we have now.
Believe me, they’ll find ways to centralize things again
Need to end Internet Gate Keepers. Computer scientists in Brazil were designing an alternative Internet that runs completely on private peoples computers.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
lol
install gentoo
Ok now try and explain that to average Joe, who you want on your side. You aren't helping.
Yes
Thank you.. SOOO much!
Cant wait for a youtube alternative. Its the tech giant i hate the most
There are two out there already. Bitchute and NicoNico, the latter of which is a Japanese site that has a unique commenting system where viewers can post comments that appear on the video itself at specific points.
@@NexAngelus405 not a fan of bitchute because it has the same marketing strategies as gab, and it doesnt offer any better features. Ill take a look at niconico
There's also LBRY and Brighteon. But you're not going to find "better features" anywhere while these things are in their infancy and Goolag is willing to piss money away at UA-cam
It has to be used to get better.
This video didn’t age well.
8:14 Reason uses Brave, the best browser.
What about tor.
@@debanjanbarman7228 If you click on the "current user" icon on Brave,
it says "open tor window".
@@johndatsun8714 on my Ubuntu Brave is not opening
@@debanjanbarman7228 there's a fix for that on their github
It doesn't run as root btw.
A better Internet can happen, for instance if a portion of Top teir peering ISP access were made available for the public and the "little guys" who don't own all the infrastructure.
I wish this was the future but I'm extremely skeptical. Countries like China and South Korea have technology that can block proxy servers in addition to filtering content and monitoring everybody, which is the opposite of this.
There's not gonna be any governments pretty soon.
Thank You So Much.
You lost me at Decentralized Web. It makes no sense, the internet is decentralized, that's why they call it the world wide web. because it's a series of interconnected networks.
Right there with you... CCNA here these people have no idea what they are talking about.
Then how do four companies control it?
I like it. Let's make it so. More power to the people.
I call BS on this whole 'centralized' nonesense...At one time people thought AOL was the internet...
Today it's facebook n' google.....Nothing lasts...
@Tech420P As far as I can tell, the url window is still open text on any browser I know of...
History is nothing but people with resources applying 'algorithms' to get people to do things...
There's nothing new under the sun brother.
(psssst....change your home page)
Ever wonder why there isnt any competition for google? or UA-cam?
Because the government wants it that way.
Very well done. Thank you.
Counting on people being altruistic is a bad idea
Mitra should ask the NSA if they have any rackspace available...
When you watch zukerberg testifying before congress around 10:15 in, he looks and speaks like Data from star trek, the next generation. I think with all his billions he became a cyborg at some point.
This happened before when they did "trust" busting, which in fact made them(the people that owned the trusts) even more wealthy. Everyone in government is already owned.
Is coming? The web (world wide web...aka www) is designed to be decentralized and is implemented that way. Just because most people go to one site doesn't mean it is "centralized"... I feel like the research for this video had a headline and they were grasping for decentralization...wedging it where it didn't belong. I wouldn't call retail "centralized" due to Amazon's dominance. Maybe it should be called "The Competitive Web Is Coming".
Yes it looks like these days you can only get an audience to speak about something you don't really understand. The decentralisation is needed for applications and services instead. A project is underway to achieve just that, please join and spread the word. www.kickstarter.com/projects/146870811/waga-the-universal-software?ref=b9ayuc. or contact me 1 819 410 06 20
Forget the anti trust laws, remove them completely. The solution is to remove all intellectual property laws too
Both actions will aid greatly in a decentralized internet and is compatible with libertarian/anarchist/voluntaryist/capitalist views
It goes without saying that this will be an enormous victory for liberty worldwide
The Internet is already decentralized. It's inherent to the technology.
Yes! 😀
No
Yes applications and services offered on the internet need to be decentralised instead. A project is underway for that purpose. please join and spread the word or contact me 1 819 410 06 20 www.kickstarter.com/projects/146870811/waga-the-universal-software?ref=b9ayuc
yeah......about that 🙄🤔
All your computers are compromised because DNS requests haven't been encrypted but rather sent "in the clear". This has allowed websites to be spoofedand malware/spyware to be inserted into your computers. DNS over TLS is a solution but you will need to reprogram all computers by hand using the source code to eradicate the malware/spyware which has infected them during the time DNS requests were not encrypted.
"who is the federal goverment to tell these company's they have to do that?"
The Federal Goverment
BRAVO!
Oooh boogeyman "monopoly"
Monopolistic = "feels like a monopoly, kinda."
Google controls "adsense" therefore Google controls how the internet makes money
Pr3pp3r Chan SHADILAY
@@shadowling77777 Praise kek
Pr3pp3r Chan Not subservience. Prosperity and entrepreneurship.
Yes some will use it to consume
But not everyone will be so subsumed
A people enabled to spend and be ingenuitive.
In this time everyone can be given ample time to thrive.
Great prescriptive/ video. Thanks!!
Haven't we been promised this before, though?!
Populist Libertarian yep. Though I’m a geek and my take is this stuff really is getting closer.
@@BobWidlefish you may be right, honestly. Just feel like I've heard this 8 or 9 times before.
*@Populist Libertarian* you’re right to be skeptical, we’re still not there yet. But we are indeed closer. Some of the core ideas are not only technically doable, they’ve already been done. Though we need a lot more than just core stuff before the masses will have any reason to care. There are still many gaps on that end. BitTorrent, bitcoin, ethereum, streemit, IPFS, etc, these are all important visible steps towards a decentralized future ecosystem. It still has a ways to go in my eyes, though if there was enough pressure this could be accelerated dramatically. It’s amazing how productive geeks can be when sufficiently motivated - weaponized autism. :)
BobWidlefish IPFS!
Make it so!
Breaking a company up because of feelings.. OMG shut up.
Stop sucking off Facebook
Whoa, It’s like you’re interviewing Mr. Mom.
Sync to LBRY already, ReasonTV
What's that?
@@sasi5841 One of several prominent UA-cam alternatives
Internet Archive is absolutely amazing!
Try maidsafe
And here we are...
Oh good lord Reason, do your research. Stallman didn't create Linux.
Helped gnu
Oh good lord, Daniel Chateau, do your research. They clearly said "helped create".
@@sujimayne He didn't help create Linux, period. He developed his own kernel that no one wanted.
Decentralization is for the best, I hope we can get there soon, very soon.
This is a phenomenally fantastic idea.
This video is reason at its best.
I think this is the most fascinating question for right leaning people. We're hesitant towards government intervention but see the benefit. Constant questions around this topic
Regulation on the internet compies will have short term benefits but long term detrements.
Everything the government touches turns to shit eventually.
I choose more open internet.
Cory Doctorow had it right at the beginning. The real problem is the government, intellectual property being just one example of government structures that make up the foundation of our corporatist society. Where he goes wrong is further government intervention with anti-trust law, that is just shit on shit. It's just a fresh coat of paint on rotting walls.
thank you for challenging this boing boing marxist and asking the hard questions
I think I saw something, somewhere, that said that the decentralization (or break up) of bigger companies only made them stronger as it broke them up into "independent" pieces which were harder to investigate and regulate.. anybody reading this has ever heard of that?
@Sith'ari Azithoth one example is Standard Oil, in 1880 it controlled most oil, but it then was broken up by an antitrust lawsuit. The pieces changed names, had different leaders, but where still interconnected. So it really didn't have the desired effect and separate efforts would be needed to investigate each.
You also have the same effect with AT&T and big tobacco.
You can read more about it here: www.americanactionforum.org/insight/a-history-of-failure-government-imposed-corporate-breakups/
It's like the hydra dragon, you cut one head off and instead of only growing another, the dragon's head that was cut off grows a new body.
If from 100 locations, you only need to address one lawsuit, regulation, investigation towards that group(company), it's one step. But if you break it up and give a new name and faces to each piece, then it's harder to take one step and figure them all out.
Regulation is the way to go.
Sheeeeiiitttt..... I deleted my shitbook 9 years ago. I knew those social media platforms were no good
Totally wrong picture for Richard Stallman
Intriguing avatar you have there. Never seen the porcupine before.