It's probably naive, but I genuinely wonder where we'd be today re: people "self-hosting" servers if IPv6 had already seen wider adoption, more upload bandwidth were generally available, and "decentralization" had focused more on "sync eventually" instead of, like, XMPP-style.

@zkat it'd be better and easier, but still means "run your own server", which is the domain of a pretty small group of people.

(Yeah, that kind of stuff makes it a lot easier, but it's still on par with "doing your own car maintenance")

@astraluma @zkat i like to think there's an opportunity for a "progressive web service" that starts living in your phone and can be easily migrated to a generic (or specific) compute service with a few clicks and some currency.

But the devil's in the details I'm sure.

@astraluma @zkat ideally the end user would never see the word "server" unless they like digging in computer bits. ;)

@brion @zkat the problem is ~all apps benefit from connecting with multiple devices.

I was working with a partner on an e2ee, open participation application sync platform (like, if signal had an API and application instances could use it as a channel to synchronize), but unfortunately you need many spoons to invent that kind of cryptography.

@astraluma @zkat that last part used to be a lot easier when cars weren't made out of computers, none of which allow access

@zkat do you know about Safe Network? Sounds like it 🤔

IPv6: ehh, maybe, it was an issue but not the primary one
upload speeds: no (most Not Computer People don't realize there are multiple numbers involved in network speeds at all)
eventual sync: ehh. probably need both, but syncthing is painfully underused as is and it's, like, the minimum effort self hosting thing.

IMO it was always primarily a marketing problem. If people had decided these were the things they wanted, they would've pushed for the technologies that made them easier.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

On the internet, everyone knows you're a cat — and that's totally okay.