Thinking about FidoNet and its eventual "demise" through changes in technology.
"...By the mid-1990s there were almost 40,000 FidoNet systems in operation, and it was possible to communicate with millions of users around the world. Only UUCPNET came close in terms of breadth or numbers; FidoNet's user base far surpassed other networks like BITNET.
The broad availability of low-cost Internet connections starting in the mid-1990s lessened the need for FidoNet's store-and-forward system, as any system in the world could be reached for equal cost. Direct dialing into local BBS systems rapidly declined."
Today's nostr relay model requires users to connect to multiple relays. Over time perhaps we end up with some quasi federated query done in a decentralized way. The closest I've seen for this has been relay services that reach out and cache others like nostr dot wine. This however does lead back to risks of censorship by virtue of centralization at the relays. We're going to be facing the back and forth pendulum on this forever.
"FidoNet is governed in a hierarchical structure according to FidoNet policy, with designated coordinators at each level to manage the administration of FidoNet nodes and resolve disputes between members.[20] The rules of conduct are summed up into these two deliberately vague principles:
Thou shalt not excessively annoy others.
Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed."
In terms of content, increasing the number of relays, but keeping their focus topical may be a way to manage smaller groups, but Im not so sure it scales well to thousands+ users. There will however be leaders that run this infrastructure that end up siloing content and platforms. We've seen this with ZBD and Primal, and I suspect Nos dot Social also falls under this concern. There are pros and cons to such platforms, and ultimately its up to users of them to take control of their own data vs living at the behest of the platform. We're going to need to provide users with more easy to use tools for backups and data transfer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidoNet
Vic
npub1yx…p7kza
2024-08-25 04:24:14
Author Public Key
npub1yx6pjypd4r7qh2gysjhvjd9l2km6hnm4amdnjyjw3467fy05rf0qfp7kzaPublished at
2024-08-25 04:24:14Event JSON
{
"id": "00007caa2c5f90b25f27dd9dd643fd0e8953860b5e696d7c97fafae6fd8fd7d9",
"pubkey": "21b419102da8fc0ba90484aec934bf55b7abcf75eedb39124e8d75e491f41a5e",
"created_at": 1724559854,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"nonce",
"77461",
"16"
]
],
"content": "Thinking about FidoNet and its eventual \"demise\" through changes in technology.\n\n\"...By the mid-1990s there were almost 40,000 FidoNet systems in operation, and it was possible to communicate with millions of users around the world. Only UUCPNET came close in terms of breadth or numbers; FidoNet's user base far surpassed other networks like BITNET.\n\nThe broad availability of low-cost Internet connections starting in the mid-1990s lessened the need for FidoNet's store-and-forward system, as any system in the world could be reached for equal cost. Direct dialing into local BBS systems rapidly declined.\"\n\nToday's nostr relay model requires users to connect to multiple relays. Over time perhaps we end up with some quasi federated query done in a decentralized way. The closest I've seen for this has been relay services that reach out and cache others like nostr dot wine. This however does lead back to risks of censorship by virtue of centralization at the relays. We're going to be facing the back and forth pendulum on this forever.\n\n\"FidoNet is governed in a hierarchical structure according to FidoNet policy, with designated coordinators at each level to manage the administration of FidoNet nodes and resolve disputes between members.[20] The rules of conduct are summed up into these two deliberately vague principles:\n\n Thou shalt not excessively annoy others.\n Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.\"\n\nIn terms of content, increasing the number of relays, but keeping their focus topical may be a way to manage smaller groups, but Im not so sure it scales well to thousands+ users. There will however be leaders that run this infrastructure that end up siloing content and platforms. We've seen this with ZBD and Primal, and I suspect Nos dot Social also falls under this concern. There are pros and cons to such platforms, and ultimately its up to users of them to take control of their own data vs living at the behest of the platform. We're going to need to provide users with more easy to use tools for backups and data transfer.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidoNet",
"sig": "49c43247bc62a693564af0c5c73af9454b80dc0da6230eb86a7f1cda114388b157988ad10bba0da0640b9e9b2a91804b71eaf9a7a6846fb7c68769446ec8e417"
}