The full picture of what exactly? How that fact is even relevant to this post? Do you expect anyone affiliated with AI to mention that every time they talk about AI? That's just ridiculous.
I expect someone writing a blog about AI agents help you run your home server to disclose that they are "helping companies automate operations with AI" as their job, which they get money for.
Why wouldn't you bring it up, or even lead with it?
Doesn't it make sense to want to know this? It's not far fetched at all that there is a conflict of interest. How can they be unbiased in the validity of the approach if this is exactly the same stuff they sell for money?
I think it's great that people are getting into self-hosting, but I don't think it's _the_ solution to get us off of big tech.
Having others run a service for you is a good thing! I'd love to pay a subscription for a service, but ran as a cooperative, where I'm not actually just paying a subscription fee, instead I'm a member and I get to decide what gets done as well.
This model works so well for housing, where the renters are also the owners of the building. Incentives are aligned perfectly, rents are kept low, the building is kept intact, no unnecessary expensive stuff added. And most importantly, no worries of the building ever getting sold and things going south. That's what I would like for my cloud storage, e-mail etc.
Hey, I was thinking about this same idea lately. What exactly would you want hosted by somebody?
I was thinking about what if your "cloud" was more like a tilde.club, with self hosted web services plus a Linux login. What services would you want?
Email and cloud make sense. I think a VPN and Ad Blocker would too. Maybe Immich and music hosting? Calendar? I don't know what people use for self hosting
I don't actually need much, I think basically just encrypted cloud storage would be great. If there was something like proton mail, but ran as a co-op, I'd also use that (it has great calendar support too).
I'd really focus on it being usable for non-techies, I don't think I'd want a linux login for anything. IMO, the focus should be on the basic infrastructure of digital life for the everyday person.
tilde.club sounds interesting though! Hadn't heard of it before.
My (admittedly a bit tinfoil) take on the recent self-hosting boom is that it's highly compatible with individualist suburban capitalism; and that while there are elements of it that offer an alternative path to techno-feudalism, by itself it doesn't really challenge the underlying ideology. It's become highly consumerist, and seems more like a way of expressing taste/aesthetics than something that's genuinely revolutionary. Cooperative services (as you describe) seem like they offer a way more legitimate challenge, but I feel like that's a big reason why they don't see as much fete-ing in the mainstream tech media and industry channels.
I say all this as someone who's been self-hosting services in one form or another for almost a decade at this point. The market incorporation/consumerfication of the hobby has been so noticeable in the last five years. Even this AI thing seems like another step in that direction; now even non-experts can drop $350+ on consumer hardware and maybe $100 on some network gear so that they can control their $50/bulb Hue lights and manage their expansive personal media collection.
Interesting! I'm not sure how severe the consumerisation really is, but yeah I can totally see the whole home-automation thing playing into it too.
I don't think mainstream tech media is deliberately omitting co-ops in their reporting due to them challenging the status quo. I think it's rather that actually, there aren't really many initiatives in the space.
And I think that is due to a lot of tech people thinking that if only the technology becomes good enough, then the problem will be solved, then, finally, everyone can have their own cloud at home.
I think that's wrong though, I think the solution in this case is that we organize the service differently, with power structured in a different way. We don't need more software to solve the problem. We know how to build a cloud services, technically. We know how to do it will. It's just that if the service is run for-profit, counter to the interests of the users, it will eventually become a problem for the users. That's the problem to fix, and it's not one to fix with technology, but just with organizing it differently.
It works for housing, in some areas it also works for utilities like internet, there are also co-ops for food. Why shouldn't it also work for modern-day utilities like cloud storage and email?
As a techie, don't be content with just running your own self-hosted service. Run it for your family, run it for your friends, run it for your neighborhood! Band together!
> It's just that if the service is run for-profit, counter to the interests of the users, it will eventually become a problem for the users. That's the problem to fix, and it's not one to fix with technology, but just with organizing it differently.
100% agree with you here, and yeah I'm definitely leaning a bit too conspiratorial about it. It's probably not actually intentional, and instead just a product of the larger dynamics.
A while ago I read some interesting economic analysis about why more co-ops hadn't popped up specifically in the gig worker space, since it seems to natural to cut out the platform rent that eg. Uber extracts as profit. I'm failing to recall the specific conclusions, but IIRC the authors seemed to feel that there were some structural obstacles preventing co-ops from growing in those space. Something something capex and unit costs. It's certainly an area I'd be interested to see further analysis in.
Also you sounds like you might get a kick out of mayfirst.coop (if you're not familiar with them already). It's not exactly what you're describing, but the spirit is there. I use them for my web-hosting needs and have been extremely satisfied.
What about self-hosting as a service? You get a server in your home which you own with your open source software and data in it. And you pay a subscription to have a remote sysadmin take care of maintenance for you and can train you on the software? What happens if you don’t pay anymore is you keep everything. But like a good insurance, you’d keep the subscription because of top notch customer service.
> The reality is that the internet has become decentralized
What the author seems to mean is that internet _culture_ has become fragmented ("decentralized").
The internet (servers etc) always was decentralized by design. And the web built on top of it (commonly referred to as the internet) certainly hasn't become decentralized, rather it got more centralized.
It's unfortunate that the language isn't used precisely here, I think.
It's a newspaper, not a technical publication. I think most of its readers would correctly understand references to "the internet" to be referring to internet culture/community rather than the servers that host it.
Okay, maybe I was overly technical. I'd still say that the average reader maybe reads 'the internet' as 'the websites I browse', so I still think the language isn't good. I think it makes sense to talk about "internet culture" instead of just "the internet", that level of distinction isn't really too technical, right?
To me it's important because "the internet" meaning the sites we browse, has become incredibly centralized! It's not helpful then to say the exact opposite. And I'd also argue that this centralization, as it went along with algorithmic content distribution, is exactly the reason for the fragmentation that the article talks about.
I think there is a missed opportunity there to write a few sentences about this.
I think you're misreading the situation in (2). There is still a social contract to return the carts - just because you put a coin them doesn't make that go away.
If your interpretation is true, wouldn't the shop need to have someone there to return all the unreturned carts? I have never seen such a person. Of course, if carts are in the parking lot, eventually an employee might come to return them, but it's not the intended way of handling it.
The 1€ is a deposit, and you lose it if you fail to do what is right, but the social contract to return the cart is still there, just because money is involved, doesn't mean all ethical considerations go out of the window. Returning it is still the right thing to do. The 1€ is there as an incentive for those who would just not return it if it wouldn't cost them.
No, it may be intended as a fine of sorts, but the explicit number turns it into a cost that people are willing to pay.
First example I heard of this shift was with daycares that had trouble getting parents to pick up their kids on time, so they put a fine on it for having to stay late. This ended up increasing the problem because now there was compensation instead of guilt, and parents could make the decision that the cost was worth it.
> wouldn't the shop need to have someone there to return all the unreturned carts?
I assume it's like the bottle deposit. If enough people leave a coin in the cart and walk away someone will start returning them of their own volition just to earn the coins.
But let's all take a moment to acknowledge that it would be awesome if they had them. Can you imagine the shenanigans you could get up to designing a nationwide 40,000-foot-high rollercoaster system?
Why buy stock of something you don't like? Surely you can find other profitable investment options that also then don't support the thing you don't like?
Buying shares in a company supports the company financially only in very limited contexts (e.g. IPO). Buying shares primarily benefits you as an investor.
Buying shares in a company doesn’t benefit its operations, like making a product, directly. Hence, buying shares != support company’s products, however counterintuitive that feels.
I think the car analogy is great and also even shows that some degree of collaboration is great! IMO it's about the scale.
Like someone giving you directions while driving, IMO it's great to have input from 1 to 2 people on a PR, and also while planning a feature. For me this has helped me avoid some basic mistakes and helped me not to overlook some pitfalls early on. Same for reviews.
But the screenshot from a PR with ~10 people reviewing it is where it gets crazy, I've never seen that.
Personally I usually just don't add to discussions like that, seems pointless. IMO it's also about trusting your colleagues: probably they have already said all there is to say.
reply