- cross-posted to:
- selfhost@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- selfhost@lemmy.ml
The future is community-hosted
Related Hacker News thread:
You must log in or # to comment.
«legally aquired» lol
The authors approach to not owning anything digital was to attempt self hosting. But the authors reaction to the amount of work was that he shouldn’t own the “self-hosting”? He does not even realize that he’s back to not owning anything
He proposes the cloud be owned by communities, so in a way by everyone. That’s not the same everything being owned by private companies.
So is he insinuating that communities should have IT people who keep things running for everyone (like a digital librarian of sorts)?
Because that takes time, effort, and money. Like a lot more than one would spend or need for just themselves/family/maybe a couple of friends.
Also, community-run self-hosting just seems like a bad idea from a privacy and legality standpoint. One pirate getting caught isn’t usually so bad (usually a warning or small fine). But once you start distributing, then you’re going from a kiddie pool of consequences into an ocean of consequences. We’re talking massive fines and/or jail time.
Edit: I should clarify that I’m not talking about services here, but content itself.
The point is that clouds aren’t inherently bad, and actually come with a lot of important upsides; they’ve become bad because capital owns and exploits everything in our society, poisoning what should be a good idea. The author is arguing that while there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with self-hosting, it’s not really a solution, just a patch around the problem. Rather than seeking a kind of digital homesteading where our lives are reduced to isolated islands of whatever we personally can scratch from the land, we should be seeking a digital collectivism where communities, not exploitative corporations, own the digital landscape. Sieze the means of file-sharing, in effect.
There’s so much to host that isn’t related to pirated media sharing though. I host like 5 services and only one could be related to that. I know you clarified that you’re talking about content, but there’s also so much content that isn’t related to pirating either. Like most of the fediverse for example
In fact, that model (conceptually, though not technically) is how most fediverse software already work
Thank fuck I neither desired nor ever used Kindle. I used either my library app to read e-books or getting my booty from the high seas!
My partner has a Kindle,. its been connected to Amazon once when she got it… 4 years layer it still hasn’t been reconnected. Everything is just loaded and managed via Calibre. I have a Kobo but the screen on her 4 yr old Kindle is better then my 6 month old Kobo
I’d love to help community host stuff, but I’m terrified of someone posting cp to a server I have or getting breached.
Zero-knowledge hosting solutions should help with that, but I’m unsure how the tech and UX has been going for that on FOSS as of yet.
so did the author spent a bunch of money while excited about sticking it to companies upon discovering a company is not your friend. didn’t enjoy the work of maintaining the services or have any friends to share them with. then dreamed up federated services so someone would do all that continuing maintenance for them? am i the weird one here for only putting effort into services i have other users for or actually enjoy doing?
am i the weird one here for only putting effort into services i have other users for or actually enjoy doing?
Absolutely not.
I didn’t get the vibe that he didn’t enjoy it. More that he figures that a typical person wouldn’t enjoy it. And that I would agree with.
snot?
I like the article, but agree with so many of the comments here as well.
Ultimately I think one thing I’d love for would be a way to simply provide services (like Immich) for people but where the client is end to end encrypted, and neither the user nor the service has to worry about the how.
Example: how can I share an Immich with my family and friends, but where I don’t have access to any of their data. I.e. what signal does, but immich or any other service. I want to share my server with friends/family, but I don’t want access to any of their data. It isn’t a lack of trust, it’s that I don’t want that as even something they have to worry about
That same concept then extends here to community hosting. If we can solve the problem for a few, it should be scalable to many.
If you do not have physical access, it is not yours. Trust absolutely no one.
The future is P2P
The presence is P2W.
The LinkedIn-styled writing here is hard for me to get through, but I think the general gist is that for profit platforms are easier to onboard which I agree with. This line stands out:
And what do we get in return? A worse experience than cloud-based services.
I have to disagree somewhat, it’s a different experience that is absolutely more difficult in many ways, but for those of us who value privacy, control over our data, and don’t like ads, the trade-off is worth it. Also it goes without saying that the usability of selfhosted apps has exploded in the past few years and it will likely become less and less of an issue.
Its funny to say a worse experience because I can confidently say that all the services ive replaced are equal or better than their corporate counterparts. And sometimes better by 10x
I never wonder, is “X” is on jellyfin? Yes, good. No, give me 5.
Instead of building our own clouds, I want us to own the cloud. Keep all of the great parts about this feat of technical infrastructure, but put it in the hands of the people rather than corporations. I’m talking publicly funded, accessible, at cost cloud-services.
I worry that quickly this will follow this path:
- Someone has to pay for it, so it becomes like an HOA of compute. (A Compute Owners Association, perhaps) Everyone contributes, everyone pays their shares
- Now there’s a group making decisions… and they can impose rules voted upon by the group. Not everyone will like that, causing schisms.
- Economies of scale: COA’s get large enough to be more mini-corps and less communal. Now you’re starting to see “subscription fees” no differently than many cloud providers, just with more “ownership and self regulation”
- The people running these find that it takes a lot of work and need a salary. They also want to get hosted somewhere better than someone’s house, so they look for colocation facilities and worry about HA and DR.
- They keep growing and draw the ire of companies for hosting copies of licensed resources. Ownership (which this article says we don’t have anyway) is hard to prove, and lawsuits start flying. The COA has to protect itself, so it starts having to police what’s stored on it. And now it’s no better than what it replaced.
Wouldn’t a zero-knowledge hosting solution (you provide hosting, but you can’t see what’s into it past a stream of binary) help with that?
Software suggestions?
Companies like Amazon have been playing dirty with Digital Rights Management (DRM) since the Internet’s inception.
False. They came along after the fact and sullied the waters, then lobbied to make it illegal to tinker with the DRM locks, then got richer than God.
The future (and the past) is piracy.
Every city should host main public web servicies for its citizens, each one as an instance of a complex system, that’s how anarchy works.
Hi! This is what I’m trying to do with tucson.social. Wish the city would get back to me. I don’t want to own/operate Tucson.social alone perpetually. Lol.
It would allow me to expand to a lot more community services outside of social media, chat, and Meetup platforms.
There’s dozens of us! Dozens!
That quickly becomes a tragedy of the commons. The city residents pay for it but how do you verify “citizenship”?
If every city has the same then why would you even want to?
It would have to be a national mandate that is available in every city or everyone would use the free service from one city but not vote to raise the taxes in their city to pay for their own.
If it’s a national mandate, then might as well make it a national service.
If you mean citizenship as being associated to the city whose hosting services you are using, yhe power or water bill pointed at your name and residence should be able to do that. Now, if you want that plus anonimity, the only practical option I can think of for a city-wide physical campaign is some sort of GPG Signature Meetup (“signature party”).
yhe power or water bill pointed at your name and residence
Many people live in cities without owning their house. So they never see those bills. Renters are usually two levels away from the actual owner. Then there are all the people who live and work in cities but aren’t official renters.
Many people live in cities without owning their house. So they never see those bills.
In my country it’s illegal for the landlord to include utilities in the price.
It’s the responsibility of the tenant to subscribe to those services in their name.
It’s done to prevent landlords from cutting utilities on a whim or to pressure late payments.In the USA, most power bills are the tenants’ responsibility. In the USA, virtually all internet connections are the tenants’ responsibility.
The locality hosting the services could also pass a law requiring the tenants to either bear responsibilities for, or be included in, all utility related billing.
A lot of arguments in this thread seem to be ignoring this as a solution to the legitimate problems they’re raising.
Techno feudalism mentioned. Queue a Varoufakis talk
