Follow

We need to have a bit of fundamental thinking about tech.

I have been working for more than 20 years on this and always say clearly that we need 90% open and 10% closed - the are dangerously wrong in their view of 90% closed and 10% open. It's a problem we need to overcome and in no way a solution. Take note you are reading this posting ver which is 90% open and 10% closed. We are not having this conversation on diaspora ( network) few people are.

@witchescauldron
What do you think *should* be closed? Or at least is ok to be closed?

@bhaugen thats a question.

Let's start from a traditional liberal view: The majority of social interactions should be done in the OPEN and some private interactions should be done in CLOSED.

We can discuss from this.

What the current dogma misses is that just about all good social power comes from OPEN

And meany social evils come from CLOSED

if we close everything down we are left with the evil, a bad outcome.

@witchescauldron Working 20 years on this and you never figured out called a loosely defined group of people "encryptionists" wouldn't be the best way to have a conversation about it?

Screw your FUD about encryption being vaguely "dangerous", I say encrypt all the things, it has nothing to do with things being open or not. And screw your useless popularity contest between #ActivityPub and #Diaspora, I'm reading your useless drivel over ActivityPub because you yourself chose Mastodon to share it, and I would have read it the same if you chose Diaspora because the Diaspora protocol is open and #Friendica supports both ActivityPub and Diaspora protocols.

Fundamental thinking my ass, you just scraped the surface and thought you found gold.

@hypolite this is a ongoing conversation for the lasts 10 years.

let's look at your reply:
starts Dismiss if , rude opening. vaporous subject, rude, dismissive ending.

OK looking past this at the content:

I love bridging standards so looks like a good project.

so we were talking about open/closed as social technology and the of building "trustless" technology for building a trustless society.

it's a problem we need to talk about.

@witchescauldron Maybe, but absolutely not in the terms you laid down in your original post. Encryption isn’t dangerous and it is independent from openness. Until you address both I have no interest reading what you have to say.

“Vaporous subject” my ass, you keep saying absolutely nothing substantiated, throwing random technical words you seem having absolutely no understanding of. I don’t even know if you’re in favor or against trustless technologies that have a precise definition and scope because of the nonsensical relation you make with a vague “trustless society”.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Activism

To support this server and the OMN project https://opencollective.com/open-media-network