[HN Gopher] Always Own Your Platform (2019) ___________________________________________________________________ Always Own Your Platform (2019) Author : ddtaylor Score : 83 points Date : 2022-06-09 20:45 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.alwaysownyourplatform.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.alwaysownyourplatform.com) | bumper_crop wrote: | From 2006 to 2014 I owned my own platform. Several actually. But | I turned them down after it became a lot of work to maintain. At | the time, it wasn't so obvious the web was dying, but in | hindsight I probably helped kill it. | | In the beginning the web was so new, and growing so fast, with | new things, amazing sites, and more people getting online. Like | all things in life, competition arises, and better sites started | getting much more of the market share. People's expectations for | what a website could offer rose tremendously, and would abandon a | site if it wasn't up to snuff. Sites needed to have ever | improving visuals, better content, better people, better | interactivity, better everything. | | And I couldn't keep up with it. Users went from being happy to | try out something new to dismissive and bitter. More and more it | felt like work to try to make them happy, to keep building more | and better things. And that's exactly what happened. The Internet | became work. It's why we all have to be paid to come to work and | build the Internet. No one does it for free, because it's a | thankless grueling job. The only websites that survived were the | ones that made money, and could afford to use that money to hire | people. Google, Facebook, Myspace, Stumbleupon, 9gag, and even | Something Awful became money oriented rather than community | oriented. They had to, or else. | | The advice to "Always Own Your Own Platform" is a euphemistic way | of saying make a whole company out of your site and underpay the | only employee (you) for ever. The reason we don't own our own | platform anymore is because it's soooo annoying to do so. It | wasn't an accident. | hsn915 wrote: | As others have pointed out, there's currently no solution that | allows common people to self host. | | There's a minimum level of linux/sysadmin/devops expertise | requried to setup and maintain a self hosted website. | | I've written a somewhat long essay about this problem: | | https://hasen.substack.com/simple-self-hosting | | A solution is possible but no one is working on it yet as far as | I can tell. | | Instead, everyone wants to make money by taking offline/local | applications and turning them into online/cloud applications | (even if no specific capability is gained by being on the cloud) | just because it's easier to make more money that way. | mojuba wrote: | So, the eternal "You can host your stuff in your basement" vs. | "No, not everyone can host their stuff, it's hard". | | Here's (hopefully) some food for thought on how a decentralized | web could work in an ideal world in the future. | | The problem is, even if you sell amazing shiny turn-key server | boxes to every household, where they would be able to seamlessly | host everything they currently keep elsewhere (iCloud, Facebook, | etc.); even if messaging and other communication becomes absolute | P2P in the whole world and therefore there's no need for | centralized messaging services -- | | -- there would still be the problem of centralized search. The | beauty of Internet is not in its content as much as in the | ability to discover it. Search implies there has to be a central | place where you start it. This is why everyone - techies or not - | tend to push their creations to places that provide exposure and | discoverability: Medium, SoundCloud, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Then | all that is additionally indexed by a meta-engine that is Google | today. Centralization upon centralization. | | I think there might be a solution to this which would be a mix of | P2P and locally centralized services. Imagine a gigantic balanced | tree of indexing engines that belong, say, to communities. | Whenever someone performs a search anywhere in the world, the | query is propagated through the tree and is processed in a | parallel manner by a great many nodes at once. I'm not sure about | the exact algorithm right now, but something suggests Google | probably works this way anyway. Except in this ideal world, the | search engine doesn't belong to a single authority, but is rather | split into myriads of local services maintained by (and paid for) | by the communities or some small local companies. | | If you think it would be wasteful and traffic-heavy, think of the | resources and bandwidth that might be freed if Google, Facebook | and other giants were replaced by this highly decentralized | system, which, again, would work pretty much like the incumbents | do, except data would belong to and hosted by individuals who | created it, and search would be one giant brain with potentially | millions of cells that perform queries in parallel. | | How far fetched is this? Very :) But at least I hope the idea is | thought provoking. | Jistern wrote: | Clickbaity and unnecessary. | | All that needed to be said to the Hacker News audience was | something like, "Remember that 'seek to avoid a single point of | failure' applies to being enticed into vendor lock-in when, for | example, working with a company such as Amazon, Microsoft, or | Google." | mawise wrote: | Haven[1] is your own platform for publishing privately when | you're not trying to "build an audience" | | [1]: https://havenweb.org | ocdtrekkie wrote: | What's always blown my mind is the trend for businesses to fail | to understand this. Building your entire company around AWS means | a future competitor also already has full control of your company | and access to your data. | | And I think the most hilarious example is Microsoft, a trillion- | dollar level company which chose to hand over the entirety of the | web (by switching to Chromium) and mobile (by abandoning WinMo | for Android) and doesn't understand how they handed control of | their entire business to their top competitor. | | The architects of those two decisions probably guaranteed the | future collapse of Microsoft. | wolpoli wrote: | Microsoft tried to continue to maintain their own browser for | years without any market share to show for it. For whatever | reason, the browser just couldn't match the level of polish in | Google Chrome or Apple Safari. | | This current situation is stable for Microsoft - the fact that | Microsoft is gaining market share with Edge means that | Microsoft could threaten to fork Chromium, thus keeping Google | in check there. | | ...as for mobile. I agree and wish Microsoft good luck. | benoliver999 wrote: | Really hard for non-techies; even a hosted WordPress isn't easy | to use. I've been asked a few times 'I want to write online, what | do I do?' and it's hard to find easy to use answers that don't | involve vendor lock-in. Or me having to provide support forever. | | SSGs with plain text files are brilliant once you are set up, but | it's a big hurdle getting there. | | Best I can do is try to find platforms with sane exit strategies. | azangru wrote: | > Really hard for non-techies | | Yes; but it's not like even that many techies host their own | content. | | I love how Jeremy Keith copies everything he tweets to his own | site [0]. Wanted to check how he set it all up; but his site | isn't open-sourced. | | [0] - https://adactio.com | al_borland wrote: | Looks like it's the other way around. He posts on his site | and it syndicates to the other platforms. | | https://youtu.be/X3SrZuH00GQ?t=852 | azangru wrote: | Even better! The true POSSE spirit! | 3np wrote: | May be worth considering: Lightweight ActivityPub writing | platform, straightforward to self-host but there are also | managed hosts: https://writefreely.org/ | altdataseller wrote: | Sounds cool in theory but almost impossible and impractical. For | example, you can have a newsletter but google could decide your | domain belongs in Spam forever. There goes that "owned platform" | convolvatron wrote: | I don't think there is any fix for that except for people to | deliberatively and incrementally take that power from their | hands. not betting on the outcome. I guess the old real hope is | that 15 years from now when google is finally no longer | relevant, that smaller business and individuals diffuse that | control more broadly. | | or we get google 2.0 | c2h5oh wrote: | Well, technically it's still an owned platform, just in this | context it's a platform that got owned by google. | azangru wrote: | > Facebook, Google, Twitter, Medium, and YouTube entice us to | give them our creative work. It's time to take it back ... Stop | giving away your work to people who don't care about it. Host it | yourself. | | So, youtube, right? Where would you host your videos if you had a | mind to take them back? | hammock wrote: | YouTube can be used as a host yet not as a platform. Make all | your videos unlisted and just use video player on your website. | azangru wrote: | But that's not owning your platform. What if youtube decides | that your video is in violation of some community guidelines | and deletes it? | dibujante wrote: | I would simply spend millions of dollars serving my own viral | videos. | bin_bash wrote: | paid for with what, patreon? | getcrunk wrote: | Well. I'd wager you can server your 1 viral video for max a | few grand a month. | TranquilMarmot wrote: | Paid for by all the Google ads you run or money from | Patreon haha | aqme28 wrote: | > Google | | Yeah, stop letting Google dictate your search results! Create | your own search engine and own your platform! | vorpalhex wrote: | Peertube for one. | | Even if you want to use Youtube, Floatplane or others to expose | your content you can still pull users back to your site and own | the creator - user relationship. | jlbbellefeuille wrote: | The reason why you should own your own platform is called | "platform risk". | | https://www.startupillustrated.com/Archive/Platform-Risk/ | digitallyfree wrote: | In a perfect world, everyone would have their own servers in | their homes or colos. Fiber would be cheaply avaliable | everywhere, and everyone would have the know-how to manage their | locally hosted services. | | In truth, it's quite a lot of work to manage and maintain. Now | there are say Docker Wordpress images that can be set up in ten | minutes on AWS. However part of self-hosting is that there's no | technical support - you're on your own if something breaks, there | are updates, etc. Whereas a managed service abstracts all that | away, and thus is appealing to a mainstream audience. While we at | HN may like the technical side of things, many creators are | uninterested in spending hours debugging a performance issue and | want to write/draw/etc. | | Personally I have servers in my basement and run a Matrix | instance, OpenVPN, and a webserver (static site fronted by | Cloudflare) as my publicly exposed services. I also have | additional services like Landscape and network storage on LAN. | When you run all those services, you don't just follow a guide, | set it up, and leave it. While that may work for a couple months, | something will break eventually and you'll have to scramble to | fix it without understanding why. To do things properly and get | good uptime you need to understand how things work, why they're | configured that way, and have good backup and recovery practices. | Security is also another factor, especially if you are storing | private or confidential information. | | Email is something I've considered, with a smarthost as that's | unfortunately the only solution to get around the blacklists. | That's on my list and getting the same kind of reliablility as a | commercial platform is not trivial (I don't want anything | important to bounce). | | Also for creators, there are services like Youtube and Twitch | which are pretty much impossible to replicate without massive | cost and infrastructure. If you're just doing text and images, | then you could use a VPS or a CDN fronted homeserver and operate | your own website. I'm not a vtuber, but if I was it simply | wouldn't be possible for me to run my own service even though I'm | interested in this stuff. | | The only thing I really can recommend is to keep local copies of | all your work on disk, properly backed up. Then at least if you | lose access to the service, you can bootstrap again somewhere | else. | ChadNauseam wrote: | I think users appreciate having a feed that combines everyone's | posts and algorithmically recommends the best ones, like | youtube or twitter do. That can be solved with RSS now, but RSS | doesn't get you likes and replies etc. | | And they appreciate having usernames so they can say "check me | out at @username". You can solve _that_ by making everyone buy | a domain name, but we have zero infrastructure right now for | letting people use their domain name as their username. | | The cryptocurrency community does seem at least halfway | interested in solving these problems fwiw, but they do still | have some major scaling problems to overcome. | heywoodlh wrote: | > Distribute [your content] via methods you control. | | I'm being nitpicky but it feels off to me to call people out on | owning their own platform but then use Cloudflare's CDN instead | of running their own. And if they did run their own CDN, they | would probably have to use AWS or another worldwide cloud | provider and not own the hardware. And if I were Richard Stallman | I would probably come down on you for using proprietary chipsets | in your hardware instead of totally open source hardware. And you | can just keep going deeper and deeper with this train of thought. | So what level of ownership is acceptable to this website's | author? I feel like the right balance of "ownership" is super | subjective. | | I love a lot of traits of the "old-school" web and am a huge | believer in self-hosting as much as possible. But imo yelling at | people while on your high horse doesn't encourage anyone. | rapind wrote: | Just like security, you settle for the risk you can afford and | are comfortable with. | | The cloud muddies your grasp of the risks though. A lot of | these cloud offerings (like k8s) are incredibly complex, and | therefore have a lot of attack vectors, and a lot of points of | failure. We depend on layers built on layers, built on layers. | You can't really eliminate all of these dependencies, but you | can eliminate / reduce some of the highest risk ones (topmost | layers). | neoromantique wrote: | Having CF handle your CDN proxying is still much better than | just using some all in one platform. At least you own your data | and can migrate it if need be. | mro_name wrote: | http://IndieWeb.org/POSSE to a rescue. | dijit wrote: | Previous (2019): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20145704 | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | The issue is that you will always need some type of | infrastructure to work. | | Maybe we need government investment in infrastructure. Having | government infrastructure allows a lot of small businesses to | work. | | Take for example the road system. There are so many business that | depend on the roads. Imagine if they were all owned by private | companies that could kick you off at their whim? | | The postal system also is very similar, though recently it has | been getting less investment. | | One advantage of government infrastructure is that there are laws | and rights such as due process/freedom of speech/etc. | | I am not sure what that would look like in practice for the | digital world. One area that be useful is digital identity. Other | people have mentioned it, but maybe having the Postal Service | provide you with a secure identity card (similar to what Estonia | provides). This would enable "social login" without being | dependent on Google/Facebook/Apple/etc. | | The truth is owning your own platform is beyond what an | individual developer or small (or even medium sized) company can | do. | foxhop wrote: ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-09 23:00 UTC)