[Freedombox-discuss] "What's a Distributed Social Network?" -- the comic

Dan Overholtzer danover at comcast.net
Fri Feb 25 03:48:06 UTC 2011


On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:36:22 -0800, Jake Emerson  
<jakeemerson at spatial.maine.edu> wrote:

>
> "Decentralized network" probably evokes an accurate picture in people's  
> minds, and that could help tell the story. Just a thought to chew on  
> while the project is still young.


The subconscious does not process negatives. When it hears the word  
"don't" it simply goes in to waiting mode until the next word is spoken.  
The same goes for the structure of words. "De-centralized" will be  
processed, by your unconscious, as "centralized."

That is not to say that "distributed" is a much better choice. It is not.  
It, also, has a subtle implication of "distributor" which we would do well  
to avoid. I can think of no better word, from a PR and psychological  
standpoint, than the word "shared." Yes, it is imprecise and borderline  
meaningless. It is also the word that evokes the thing that we are all  
trying to do.

Godspeed,
Dan

>
> Cheers,
> Jake
>
> On 02/24/2011 06:08 PM, Thomas Lord wrote:
>> Re:
>>
>>> Yes, "decentralized" does get the point across
>>> much better, doesn't it?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A minor issue - and I really hope I don't
>> start a language fight but: on the meanings of
>> "distributed" and "decentralized" ...
>>
>>
>> I like to encourage the usage described below.
>> If I do accidentally start a language fight
>> let me announce in advance that I immediately
>> surrender and quit that fight :-)   You are
>> right, everyone who disagrees.    Here we go:
>>
>>
>> "distributed" means that a computation is
>> spread across multiple hosts.   "distributed"
>> is a strictly technical property of a
>> software system.   I'm a little fuzzy on exactly
>> what we mean by "host" but, you get the idea.
>>
>>
>> "decentralized" means that there is no central
>> control (legal, social, economic, technical) of
>> a computing system.
>>
>> For example:   Amazon's cloud services and Google's
>> various services are "distributed" but they are
>> "centralized".
>>
>> Another example:  The MIT AI lab used to host
>> an old ITS (Incompatible Time Sharing operating
>> system) machine to which anyone who who heard
>> of it could obtain an account and easily obtain
>> the equivalent of "root".   That system was not
>> distributed - for it ran on a single machine -
>> but it was, for the most part, decentralized.  (MIT
>> retained central control over when exactly to pull
>> the plug, of course.)
>>
>> It's maybe too wordy but it is more accurate if we
>> talk about:
>>
>>      distributed, decentralized social networking
>>
>> to convey that no one host holds the whole thing (distributed)
>> and that no one party is in control (decentralized).
>>
>> Of course, distributed and decentralized alone are
>> not all that we really mean.   After all, the cell phone
>> and land line telephony networks are, so to speak, both
>> distributed and decentralized but they are also in some
>> sense untrustworthy.  While decentralized, nevertheless
>> power over them is concentrated.  Though distributed,
>> not just anyone can add a new node.
>>
>> We could try adding more adjectives:
>>
>>      distributed, decentralized, personally emopwering
>>      social networking
>>
>> Ick.
>>
>> Or maybe just stick with "distributed, decentralized" and
>> combine that with Eben Moglen's formulation:
>>
>>      We replace that social networking functionality
>>      but *you* control the server logs (that pertain to
>>      you).
>>
>> ("What's a server log?" -- asks dad :-)
>>
>> -t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 14:36 -0800, J David Eisenberg wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Jake Emerson
>>> <jakeemerson at spatial.maine.edu>  wrote:
>>>> Hi David,
>>>> The comic at http://dsn-test.com/comic is great. Just curious,  
>>>> though, why
>>>> did you choose the term "distributed" instead of "decentralized?"
>>> Because I started writing the script shortly after Diaspora issued its
>>> first release, and their blog says: "Diaspora aims to be a distributed
>>> network..." That was the term that I saw more often in news articles,
>>> and it seemed to be in more common usage.
>>>
>>> BTW, I just did a Google search for "distributed social networks"
>>> (about 41,800,000 results) vs. "decentralized social networks" (about
>>> 445,000 results).
>>>
>>> Yes, "decentralized" does get the point across much better, doesn't it?
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jake
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
>>> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
>>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/



More information about the Freedombox-discuss mailing list