You open your browser, and as a 2000s Netizen, your natural first impulse is to click on Facebook or something like-something platform that you first registered to keep in touch with your friends and family or maybe even make new ones.
But where you once saw a rolling flow of invitations to Cousin’s birthday parties, photographs from your aunt’s last trip to Mallorca and humorous personal status updates from your best friends, what you now see is an unrecognizable horror show.
Angry people you’ve never met are shown on your feed to rant about topics you’ve never heard of. Smug political memes badger you to sneak that a choir or medium, even if you are pretty sure you have never let any of your political inclinations slip on Facebook. A video by a Sloven Talking Head says that the movie you just watched at the cinema is one of the worst things that Hollywood has ever done and can signal the end of Western civilization. During all, there is a commentary episode that looks more like a botch colonoscopy than a discussion between real people.
You think it might be time to look for an alternative platform or even remove from Social media Completely, but quickly realize that there is a problem. You have spent several years, if not decades, to fill Facebook with your Musings, photos, videos and cherished conversations with friends – even your friend’s list is an important vein of personal information that would be lost forever if you decide to close your account.
Although all these things are products from your creation, which are only virtually relevant to you, they will forever be grated behind the closed ecosystem on Facebook. Leaving Facebook or any other social media platform means leaving your data Where it is while you come to another platform.
And talk about alternative platforms, where are they? What happened to the carousel who rented you from Myspace to Bebo to Facebook?
The truth is that it has been the same reason that you never remove Facebook: It has become too difficult to attract people away from platforms they have invested years in. If GoogleS (s (Nasdaq: Googl) Attempts on social media could not attract people away from Facebook, what hope does any other disturbing interference have?
In light of the gloomy reality listed below, it is fair to wonder: Is that really how Internet would be?
Tim Berners-LeeInventor of the World Wide Web (www), really don’t think so. In an ornery editorial published in the Financial Times (FT), Berners-Lee mentioned This: “People sometimes ask me how I think the World Wide Web will survive 35 years after the invention, and I have to admit, like them, to reservations of two kinds: the dysfunctional nature of certain aspects of it, but also Wishfilion – the challenge with yet unrealized promises.”
Berners-Lee did not invent the Internet, but for the average user he might as well have it. WWW is the system of interconnected web pages that are built on top of the internet’s infrastructure. In practical terms, this is all you see when surfing.
To him, Today’s internet is not how it used to be And really is not how he imagined it. But, he says, it is The end result of years and years of what he calls “the natural application of markets and monopoly”, which has been to the disadvantage for all of us.
“We allowed every social media platform to build an innocable garden wall with our data caught inside. We did not insist that we could share our Facebook photos with our LinkedIn colleagues, for example. We also did not insist that we could use the same identity and transfer the same friend list from Instagram to X and then to Reddit.”
The idea that such things could have been insisted on or that our information can be anything but fenced within individual platforms is probably news for most people. We are so used to leaving ownership of our personal data And content with the platforms that are worthy of them that it is difficult to imagine it in any other way.
But as Berners-Lee points out, it never had to be so. E-mail does not work that way, and it is infinitely better for it: Gmail users are not captured in the Gmail Ecosystem, can only communicate with other Gmail addresses using special Gmail-approved software clients. Instead, everyone can with an @gmail.com address use Microsoft Outlook to email a @yahoo.com e -mail address as if they were all part of the same ecosystem. In other words, e -post Interoperable.
And as Berners-Lee claims, there is no reason why the entire Internet, including social media, cannot be like this. The personal data that acts as the raw material for platforms that Facebook could have been kept within the user’s control, with social media platforms that only deduct a user -controlled detention for information to build whatever profile they want.
Berners-Lee’s FT article ultimately tries to sell the reader on its own solution-set of data standards and software solutions called “solid” which would see personal data stored online in “pods” which is controlled by the user, which would decide which services can access the data and when. But he is somewhat late for the party, and such solutions – in decentralized solutions – already exist.
In fact, Berners-Lee’s proposed solution describes the vision advocated by advocates for BSV blockchain. For example: “Solid tries to decentralize the web. The platform can be used to build new applications that request access to user data. This data is stored in such a way that users have complete control over it.”
“The power of these tools is not limited to social media. I founded included in building a data wallet At the top of solid that can store everything from your driver’s license to photos to medical data. “
Such a vision is so attractive that it has already been implemented with a robust technology that was practically built for this much use case: BSV blockchain. Nchain’s identity solution performs more or less as described by Berners-Lee; BSV, however, has a fixed advantage compared to Berners-Lee’s fixed or any other attempt to decentralize the Internet: Scalability. BSV -Blockchain’s central principle is its ability to scale indefinitely. Unlike other blockchains, which artificially restrict the amount of transactions that can be recorded in each new block, BSV has no such limitWhich means it can treat as many transactions as needed.
As the use of the network grows, transaction speeds and fees Stay the same.
Of crucial importance, this scalability is the only thing that guarantees that the promised decentralization will never be compromised. Consider the solutions required to make BTC The network function that adoption has grown. Introduce transaction speeds that slow down to a scan and fees balloons to inconvenient levels, those responsible for BTC decided to distribute ‘Warehouse 2’ solutionsEssentially with centralized, private software to treat transactions in batches and then upload them to blockchain at once. This can help reduce the load in the network, but it comes at the expense of decentralization, which is probably the network’s sales site in the first place.
A system built to be scalable from the beginning is the only way to really preserve decentralization. A project without a plan for working on a scale has not yet proven itself as a decentralized system. Unfortunately, Berners-Lee’s product falls into the latter category; BSV falls into the former.
Not because any of this undermines Berners-Lee’s core message: that the Internet is broken and that the fix is out as long as users are willing to require it. The more mainstream votes that pay attention to this simple fact, the better.
Watch: Bitcoin retrospective and focus on the future of the internet with Mike Hearn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzheolefgdq Title = “Youtube video player” Ramborder = “0” Allow = “Accelerometer; Autoplay; Clipboard Writing; Encrypted Media; Gyroscope; Image-in-Bild; Web Dividend” Reference Policy = “Strict-Origin-When-Cross-Origin” Allowing Lorscreen = “>”
