I’m curious as to what issues IP and DNS caused that were so glaring. I assume better methods were (and are) available for addressing and routing, but that seems more a discussion about network architecture design than the kinds of societal problems that “big tech” is generally considered responsible for (if I am interpreting OP’s question correctly, that is).
I’m curious as to what issues IP and DNS caused that were so glaring.
Internet Protocol makes addresses location-based, allowing for geoblocking and tracking. It’s also centralized by design, allowing for consolidation of power, censorship, and control. DNS is one of the greatest examples of that consolidation of power, and is the reason owning a web domain costs money. In a decentralized public commons registrar or some kind, this would be no issue; a decentralized public commons registrar works better with a decentralized protocol.
I assume better methods were (and are) available for addressing and routing
Look into Reticulum. It’s a good example of a better design.
I was playing with Linux back in the kernel 2.0 days. The tech was mostly ready for us geeks, but not for everyone else. Switching meant new habits, and “it’s free and open” was never a strong enough reason for most people.
People use big tech products for convenience: already installed, works out of the box, compatible with everything their friends use. Microsoft knew that playbook very well.
No matter how much we argue and explain, if it isn’t more convenient, most people won’t switch.
The silver lining: building small alternatives has never been cheaper
Yes. We already screwed it up when Internet Protocol took over and DNS was established. There were better methods. There are better methods.
That aside, we did have alternatives to big tech software for a long time:
I’m curious as to what issues IP and DNS caused that were so glaring. I assume better methods were (and are) available for addressing and routing, but that seems more a discussion about network architecture design than the kinds of societal problems that “big tech” is generally considered responsible for (if I am interpreting OP’s question correctly, that is).
Internet Protocol makes addresses location-based, allowing for geoblocking and tracking. It’s also centralized by design, allowing for consolidation of power, censorship, and control. DNS is one of the greatest examples of that consolidation of power, and is the reason owning a web domain costs money. In a decentralized public commons registrar or some kind, this would be no issue; a decentralized public commons registrar works better with a decentralized protocol.
Look into Reticulum. It’s a good example of a better design.
Thanks, I’ll read up on it. I hadn’t considered the geographic implications baked into the IP system before
I’m glad to be helpful. :)
Good point @bold_omi.
I was playing with Linux back in the kernel 2.0 days. The tech was mostly ready for us geeks, but not for everyone else. Switching meant new habits, and “it’s free and open” was never a strong enough reason for most people.
People use big tech products for convenience: already installed, works out of the box, compatible with everything their friends use. Microsoft knew that playbook very well.
No matter how much we argue and explain, if it isn’t more convenient, most people won’t switch.
The silver lining: building small alternatives has never been cheaper