The blog post "An early social un-network" details the creation and demise of a hyperlocal, anonymous social network called "Dodgeball" in the early 2000s. Unlike friend-based platforms like Friendster, Dodgeball centered around broadcasting one's location via SMS to nearby users, fostering spontaneous real-world interactions. Its simple design and focus on proximity aimed to connect people in the same physical space, facilitating serendipitous meetings and shared experiences. However, its reliance on SMS proved costly and cumbersome, while its anonymity attracted unwanted attention and hindered the formation of meaningful connections. Despite its innovative approach to social networking, Dodgeball ultimately failed to gain widespread traction and was eventually acquired and shut down.
The blog post details the author's rediscovery of, and fascination with, the Usenet newsgroup alt.anonymous.messages. This group, designed for anonymous posting before the widespread adoption of anonymizing tools like Tor, relied on a server that stripped identifying headers. The author describes the unique culture that emerged within this space, characterized by stream-of-consciousness posts, personal confessions, emotional outpourings, and cryptic, often nonsensical messages, all contributing to an atmosphere of mystery and intrigue. The author highlights the historical significance of this group as a precursor to modern anonymous online communication and expresses a sense of nostalgia for this lost digital world.
HN users discuss the now-defunct alt.anonymous.messages Usenet newsgroup, expressing nostalgia and sharing anecdotes. Several commenters reminisce about its unique culture of anonymity and free expression, contrasting it with the more traceable nature of modern internet forums. Some recall the technical challenges of accessing the newsgroup and the prevalence of spam and noise. Others highlight its role as a precursor to later anonymous online spaces, debating its influence and the eventual reasons for its decline. The overall sentiment is one of remembering a bygone era of the internet, marked by a different kind of anonymity and community interaction. A few commenters also mention the difficulty of archiving Usenet content and express interest in exploring any preserved archives of the group.
Andrew Tanenbaum, creator of MINIX, argued in 1992 that Linux, being a monolithic kernel, represented an outdated design compared to the microkernel approach of MINIX. He believed that microkernels, with their modularity and message-passing architecture, offered superior portability, maintainability, and reliability, especially as technology moved towards distributed systems and multicore processors. Tanenbaum predicted that Linux, tied to the aging Intel 386 architecture, would soon become obsolete and fade away as more advanced hardware and software paradigms emerged. He emphasized the conceptual superiority of MINIX's design, portraying Linux as a step backwards in operating system development.
HN commenters largely dismiss the linked 1992 post arguing for Minix over Linux. Many point out that the author's predictions about Linux's limitations due to its monolithic kernel and lack of microkernel structure were inaccurate, given Linux's widespread success and ongoing development. Some acknowledge that microkernels have certain advantages, but suggest that Linux's approach has proven more practical and adaptable. A few commenters find the historical perspective interesting, noting how the computing landscape has changed significantly since 1992, rendering the arguments largely irrelevant in the modern context. One commenter sarcastically celebrates Tanenbaum's foresight.
Summary of Comments ( 5 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43077091
Hacker News users discussed the impracticality of the "social un-network" described in the linked article, particularly its reliance on physical proximity and limitations on content sharing. Some found the idea nostalgic and reminiscent of earlier, smaller online communities like Usenet or BBSs. Others expressed concerns about scalability and the potential for abuse and harassment without robust moderation tools. Several commenters questioned the overall utility of such a system, arguing that existing social networks already address the desire for smaller, more focused communities through features like groups or subreddits. The lack of searchability and portability of conversations was also a recurring criticism. While some appreciated the author's intention to foster deeper connections, the general consensus was that the proposed system was too restrictive and ultimately unworkable in its current form.
The Hacker News post "An early social un-network" discussing the paperstack.com blog post of the same name has generated a moderate amount of discussion with several compelling threads.
Several commenters discuss the merits and drawbacks of decentralized social networking in general, with some expressing skepticism about its viability and others arguing that it offers a valuable alternative to centralized platforms. One commenter points out the difficulty of discoverability in decentralized systems, highlighting the inherent tension between open access and curation/moderation. Another commenter mentions the "network effect," suggesting that decentralized systems struggle to gain traction because they lack the critical mass of users that centralized platforms enjoy. This user also argues that the very notion of an "un-network" is oxymoronic, implying that connection inherently necessitates some form of network structure.
Another thread focuses on the specific approach described in the blog post, questioning its practicality and scalability. One commenter argues that the reliance on RSS and email makes the system cumbersome and unlikely to attract a large user base. They suggest that a more modern approach involving a dedicated client or web interface would be necessary for wider adoption.
Several commenters express nostalgia for earlier, simpler forms of online interaction, referencing platforms like Usenet and mailing lists. They lament the perceived decline in online discourse quality and the rise of centralized platforms dominated by algorithms and advertising. These commenters see the "un-network" concept as a potential return to a more authentic and user-driven online experience.
There is also some discussion of the technical details of the proposed system, with commenters exploring alternative approaches to decentralized identity and content distribution. One commenter suggests using a blockchain-based system for identity management, while another proposes a peer-to-peer architecture for content storage and retrieval.
Finally, a few commenters simply express appreciation for the author's exploration of alternative social networking models, even if they are not entirely convinced of their practicality. They see value in challenging the dominance of existing platforms and exploring different approaches to online community building. One commenter summarizes the sentiment by saying that while the specific implementation might not be ideal, the core idea of a more decentralized and user-controlled social space is worth pursuing.