Thank you for this writing and the link to the blogpost. I feel quite identified.
I also host my email and, moreover, I'm lazy to set up the ssl for all that. That's enough headache, and I also have to use a third-party MTA to be trusted, etc. And all the colleagues use email. But this means that I often face this situation: what is more important: to run free software, or to have likely-private (but I can't check) communications with my colleagues? I choose the free software, when I am faced with that question. And I get into that question quite often. On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:35:38PM +0100, Alberto Cammozzo wrote: > As Moxie Marlinspike put it: "cannibalizing a federated > application-layer protocol into a centralized service is almost a sure > recipe for a successful consumer product today." > Successful, but short-sighted. No federated or even interoperable > infrastructure will likely emerge from here. > > If e-mail system was to be built today, we would have one for Facebook, > one for Google, one for Apple... > All of them proprietary and probably non-interoperable: you would need > at least four accounts to talk to everybody. > > Our current Web-centered communication ecosystem is similar to the > balkanized pre-Internet: Bitnet, SNA, DECNET, Fidonet, OSI X.400, uucp... > IBM, Digital and others were then profitably competing over a > communication infrastructure and had no interest in cooperating to build > a federated one. > This impasse ended with government-funded TCP/IP: it was suitable, > simple, free, open. It won quickly (but ICT users were literate then). > What was the return on investment? On the immediate, zero. > On the long period? Huge. ROI was systemic. > > We are in a similar market failure condition: "centralized" dominant > companies won't drop profitable business, and "decentralized" startups > wont get zero-ROI funding. > Business can go an for a while in this ecosystem (where most users don't > care of the architecture). > It makes rather sense that governments, or non-profits or crowdfunded > initiatives sponsor systemic infrastructures upon which business can > evolve and competition thrive (as it makes sense that governments break > monopolies, too). > The EU should be a good candidate, only if it was rational about > competition. > > Bests, > Alberto > > [1] <https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/> > > > -- > Alberto Cammozzo > http://tagmenot.info > @dontTag > > > > On 05/02/2017 21:17, Yosem Companys wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > One of the problems may decentralized startups are confronting in > > Silicon Valley is that venture capitalists are telling them that they > > need to be centralized because there is no business model in > > decentralization. > > > > For an example, think Diaspora: The original vision of Diaspora was a > > social network where each person could have his or her own node in the > > network and connect to others to share data similar to how Napster > > connected people to download music. But the data would live in your > > machine, not Facebook's. > > > > Can anyone think of decentralized business models that are profitable > > so folks on this list who are struggling with pitching > > decentralization as a business model can succeed? > > > > Thanks, > > Yosem > > > > > > > -- > - > TagMeNot > http://tagMeNot.info > @dontTag > > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of > list guidelines will get you moderated: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, > change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at > compa...@stanford.edu. -- (Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP) PGP key D4831A8A - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/ -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
