They don't until they do. I know that sounds very weak, but we've seen it happen over and over with tech adoption. Granted, it's usually via network effects which are uniquely powerful with centralized services (first it was college kids on facebook, then their friends started to join, then their parents wanted to see their kids' updates, etc. etc.) but I'm optimistic that we don't actually need "social network effects" as much as we think if the alternatives can provide unique benefits that the legacy systems can't offer.
"whoa, how did you just send the landlord the rent payment in an instant without paying a credit card fee?" "oh, it's this p2p rent-sharing app - if you join it with us you don't have to write paper checks anymore, be late, or pay fees".
"whoa, how are you posting images without paying for google drive for uploads or having your content filtered by ai-spam bots?" "I use this self-hosted fileserver. here's a link - send this one-time payment and you'll have a liftime of sovereign hosting instantly"
Dumb examples that just came to mind, but hopefully you see my point.
The previous instantiation of networked society - Web 2.0 - relied on network effects because 1. nobody knew better. 2. the concept of "connecting" was novel enough to be compelling on its own. We're outgrowing that; people will start to desire more durable, more human-scale, more sovereign digital societal tools. It's our job to make sure the products are at hand, easy to use, and actually solve problems in ways the legacy world simply cannot offer. As much as tribalism sucks, it's also the narrow edge of the wedge here: when political minorities from any end of the spectrum realize their best chance at survival is to operate outside the mainstream, they reach for things like this. Ditto that for any other flavor of minorty.
I think this will only get easier the worse clown world gets. The more malignent states become, the easier the job of offering non-state/non-majority/non-network-effected solutions. Gotta make sure not to miss the opportuity to keep real soverignty on the menu.
Ancapistan already exists, it's just not instantiated on soil - which is totally fine. It exists virtually, over the network, between all it's citizens. The problem is they don't yet know how to find each other and cooperate.
We can fix this.
#Ancap #anarchocapitalism
seems to only be available on spotify, which is a bit of a bummer. I have access, but I prefer to use my other podcast clients with pure RSS.
Ooo I just discovered a new podcast. thanks!
In my opinion, they need gradual, transparent offramps that are trivially easy to start using.
In an ideal world, this would look something like a single, zero-setup personal server + self-hosted client UIs that they use to interact with various platforms. A normie would start off with their usual mainstream bullshit centralized services ("post this update to X+instgram+facebook") in an aggregated feed. Gradually as more of thier contacts start using decentralized services they add these to their single aggregated experience. Eventually as centralized experiences get more and more hostile and the noise/signal ratio increases, the normie user can "turn off X/Facebook integration" (or just let them languish and filter it out of their aggregation) and seamlessly transition to better alternatives with no loss of social graph, memes, or whatever else they're worried about losing.
I'm biased because this is what I'm building.
But that works for bitcoin, too, doesn't it? careful.
Should cats be eating raw beef? How would a wild cat ever get access to the inside of a fresh cow?
The video is working but also so is that kitty, damn!
You mean my losses?
No disagreement there.
But it doesn't change my point.
No central server/service provider, no case at all. (Or rather, 10 million cases, some of which may be actually "legitimate")
Those 5 million people can each be their own provider (for whatever service the developer would otherwise have to host and provide).
That is true sovereignty and decentralization. Central servers/service providers are the anti-pattern that has destroyed the Internet.
Look at Samourai and tell me the burden shouldn't be shifted to those doing the risky things.
That's fucked. But enjoy your path. I'll remember to steer clear of you.
The other one is Exit.
How to tell if something is a parasite.
When offered the following proposition:
"I'll guarantee to leave you alone if you guarantee to leave me alone".
It declines.
If it abhors exit, it's likely a parasite.
(From my defunct bird-site account)
I don't bother with the X crosspost anymore. Let it die in quiet, empty, echoing hallways
Their first mistake was taking fees.
Do not take fees on services like this. Build neutral tools - maybe try to sell them if possible - and let users run their own services for themselves. Or for others if they want to take that risk on themselves.
Still no.
NFTs, like them or not, are property deeds. You should respect private property even if you dislike the form it takes.