> "Decentralized means do it yourself" ...

Not necessarily. Just one famous example; BitTorrent is decentralized but for most people it's just "run this app, download files". "Decentralized" just means "doesn't rely on a centralized service to accomplish a goal". As long as the application isn't too complex to install and use, most folks won't care one way or the other whether it's decentralized or not, as long as it accomplishes the goal they're looking to accomplish.

▲

cramsession 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

There has to be a payoff though. BitTorrent is actually pretty hard to get working correctly, track down the torrent files... people do it because it's the only way to get some content and a way to get content you'd otherwise have to pay for. With social media, there's not much reward and most people's friends already post for free on other networks. Not saying it's not worthwhile, but it's hard to extract this lesson from BitTorrent.

▲

l72 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

But it can also be specialized forums like https://startrek.website/ which is hosted using Lemmy but you can use your federated login. It can help bring back indie forums and websites that aren’t controlled by Reddit or meta.

▲

blooalien 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, for sure. Anything trying to be a social network in a properly peer-to-peer fashion would have to be as simple to use (or simpler) than existing social networks, and / or offer some genuinely unique and desirable feature(s) in order to attract any serious critical mass of users.

▲

cramsession 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Interestingly the original Napster was a pretty good social network! I really liked being able to browse through all of a user's shared files. We should bring something like that back.

	▲	dokyun 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Soulseek has been around a while...

▲

bit1993 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"Anything trying to be a social network in a properly peer-to-peer fashion would have to be as simple to use..."

In practice this issue arise something like this: A decentralized service is launched it is so decentralized the user has to store their own private keys. Later a centralized solution is launched where the user does not have to go through the trouble of storing the private keys, everything is managed for them... everyone joins the centralized service.

▲

s5300 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

bawolff 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Perhaps, but i feel like under this definition, bluesky and friends, dsspite all their talk, really does fit in the centralized camp.

▲

blooalien 3 days ago | parent [-]

> ... "under this definition, bluesky and friends, dsspite all their talk, really does fit in the centralized camp."

In my mind, I put them somewhere in-between, leaning a tad more toward "centralized" because they still rely on an individual to host the service no matter how "federated" they are. Until they're truly peer-to-peer, there's still that aspect of centralization involved. We need something kinda like BitTorrent but for messaging / social connections.

	▲	rectang 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe Bluesky is analogous to Github, if the AT protocol truly does allow for migration away to an alternative? Although Git repositories are portable, PRs, issues, actions and such aren't — so even if the migration away from Bluesky is lossy the comparison seems apt.