Here is an interesting thought to post to a mastodon instance. From Dmytri Kleiner via P2P Foundation:
"Going back to an early Internet architecture of cooperative, decentralized servers, as projects such as Diaspora, GNU Social, and others are attempting to do, will not work. This is precisely the sort of architecture that anti-disintermediation was designed to defeat. Decentralized systems need to be designed to be counter-anti-disintermediationist."
@wu_lee he is right, but not for the reasons he provides. The problem is that platforms like Diaspora, GNU Social, Mastodon etc... all rely on ISPs to exist. Kleiner's idea of "[platforms] run[ning] on the computers of the platform’s users" won't solve a thing: ISPs can still lock people the fuck out of the internet as they please. Cooperatively owned ISPs are the only long-term solution to the anti-disintermediation problem.
@Antanicus: do you mean "ISP" as in a "internet connection provider" (like AOL, BT, Virgin Media) rather than "hosting service" (like whatever runs social.coop)?
So agreed, as but both can be counter-d15n'ed, wouldn't full anti-counter-d15n of the *gateways* (as I think you mean) require a mesh network, because the telco infrastructure is private and c-d15n'able?
> do you mean "ISP" as in a "internet connection provider" (like AOL, BT, Virgin Media) rather than "hosting service" (like whatever runs social.coop)?
-Yes, ISP stands for "internet service provider". Some of those also offer hosting services too, but that's not relevant.
- the telco infrastructure is private and c-d15n'able? That's why we need to overtake it and cooperatively own it. Local telcos need be the main target for this
@Antanicus @wu_lee alas there was even a point in Britain (late 19th/early 20th century where many telcos *were* locally owned (albeit by the Council) if not private companies; but because they *wouldn't* federate the Govt nationalised them into the Post Office and (as political views changed) later privatised as British Telecom, with the exception of Hull in Northern England. This remained in Council ownership until quite recently when the *citizens* of Hull *voted* to let it be privatised.
@wu_lee @Antanicus @alanz all interesting projects but mesh networks require experience with radio comms on top of traditional networking, a skillset that currently is lacking in younger generations (more common amongst older folk who have done military service!).
To get "network effect" we really need things that can work with existing fixed and mobile telephones and are not merely confined to techs/geek types with advanced computer skills, and a co-op that can pay a living wage to techs.
The original thought about anti-counter-disintermediation seems to stand, no? @Antanicus just seems to be saying, a-c-d15n of servers alone insufficient in bad cases.
So do what you can in your circumstance. Belt and braces.
@wu_lee @alanz @Antanicus a curious consequence of global situation is a lot of "not so free" countries appear to have *less* /domestic/ monitoring/control of wireless spectrum and same license exempt bands as ROW, because much equipment used in "West" is *built* there; and their govt radio techs have other military/defence stuff with higher priority to keep them occupied. That may allow a mesh network (that does not cause interference to anything else) to develop *quicker* than in "West"!
@alanz @wu_lee @Antanicus although even "developing" countries have extensive GSM (and now LTE) mobile networks. Its quite likely a combination of these and mesh will co-exist (as both require some kind of radio equipment and not every enduser wants to use only a mobile telephone) wth mesh filling in gaps or services that LTE providers do not want to supply as its not profitable or problematic with domestic govts.
One of the first Mastodon instances, there is no specific topic we're into, just enjoy your time!