> This is the fundamental issue when the public square is owned by a company. I don't think anyone can solve that.
Protocols instead of platforms:
https://medium.com/holochain/holochain-reinventing-applicati...
Protocols instead of platforms:
https://medium.com/holochain/holochain-reinventing-applicati...
People don't want everyone to have a complete platform to them to say anything they want. So somewhere someone has to be doing some deciding of who gets a platform. Protocols can't magically solve that problem.
I think there is something to giving people options on what moderation they want distinct from having to limit who they can communicate to, but all of the current attempts at that don't do a good enough job, they all offer technical solutions, but no real solutions.
What you really need is for one of these protocols to get a particular instance that does an amazing job of "no nazis, no one telling you to die or that you shouldn't have human rights", while giving you the room to move and remain on the protocol if the instance you are on starts to limit you or you start to disagree with the moderation.
Of course, this begs the question of who is going to be doing that moderation and why. That's the hard part, not the decentralised platform.
Applications built using Holochain are literally using a novel pattern that hasn’t existed before. If you know of a project that uses the same agent-centric ontology, please let me know, because I’ve looked far. As to why the lack of diversity of protocols in existing platforms (or non-usage of new protocols), I think the reason many platforms/protocols aren’t adopted is because the commons has been plundered: trade secrets block progress and have led to the creation of the web as walled gardens. Great for capitalists and advertisers, but crap for individuals.
> People don't want everyone to have a complete platform to them to say anything they want. So somewhere someone has to be doing some deciding of who gets a platform. Protocols can't magically solve that problem.
Who is 'people'? Who do you speak for? Could you share any sources that back up your claim?
From your (seemingly) quick dismissal, I’m curious to know if you read up on the actual tech? I’d be curious if you have any critique on the underlying tech?
I agree that any community needs moderation but that doesn’t mean we should have a faceless company doing it. It can be done by making cooperative block-lists/blacklists, and sharing those among participants. We don’t need the middlemen at all, in fact they are unaccountable, and are dangerous by themselves since their only focus is to exploit users and extract a profit for shareholders.
As I said though, I’m curious about any critique about Holochain tech (the software pattern). Personally I think it’s inevitable that we will move in that direction imo: the direction of an agent-centric web, a space of direct protocol negotiation and renegotiation.
I’d like to make you aware that Holochain also paves the way for new types of value accounting systems. If you are curious, check out the work of Lynn Foster, Bob Haugen, Pospi and others on hREA / http://valueflo.ws. They are in the later stages of developing a fully featured, fully distributed, Resources Events Agents (REA) accounting system built using Holochain - creating one of the world’s first Network Resource Planning software [1] that uses an official ISO standard.
It's some really groundbreaking stuff here, that's got me super excited and hopeful.
[1] https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Network_Resource_Planning
> Who is 'people'? Who do you speak for? Could you share any sources that back up your claim?
The fact that we don't allow people to scream whatever they want in your face as you walk around the supermarket.
You don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees and are trying to lawyer me on this. How do I know people don't want literally everyone to have a direct line to them? I'm a human being, and it is obvious as hell.
You are just completely missing the point of my post.
Maybe. I feel like you’re completely missing the point of my post too.
Holochain’s novelty lies in its use of DHT’s to create, store and retrieve data. Like Git source chains, it then uses cryptography to guarantee data integrity in this distributed application context. You’re basically agreeing in advance on which functions to use. Instead of using proprietary functions that are kept secret behind a firewall or limited through an API, Holochain allows you to create and use apps that directly enforce and verify open rules in a 100% distributed peer to peer way. To the best of my knowledge this sort of system hasn’t been seen or invented before.
Thy have great descriptions on their website:
[from https://holo.host/faq/]
“Holochain maintains data integrity without the need for global consensus. It uses an agent-centric approach, combining ideas from BitTorrent and Git, along with cryptographic signatures, peer validation, and gossip.
An overview:
- hApps have validation rules.
- Agents have their own local, tamper-resistant hash-chains recording their actions, built upon hApp rules.
- Each hash-chain entry is cryptographically signed (multi-party actions, like transactions, are mutually countersigned).
- Data is shared to random peers who validate it.
- Validators gossip to share good data, warn against bad data, and blacklist bad actors.“
Their code is free software, available on Github here: https://github.com/holochain