Can online platforms like Youtube and Facebook really be decentralized?

[ReiMomo]

Be decentralized? Probably yes. Just like Dtube(Decentralized Tube) a version on youtube that has been decentralized and free of ads.
This is like a youtube, a video platform that has built an apps version and utilizing the video content and the video creator awarded by uploading content. So, it is possible.

[tippytoes]

I started to learn about crypto two months ago. Bitcoin, Monero, Ethereum etc. make total sense to me.

I can't, however, understand why it would make sense to decentralize large online platforms like Youtube and Facebook. Or let's say: I don't understand how this could work.

Bitcoin has a decentralized ledger where all transactions are stored. How would that ledger look for a decentralized Youtube or Facebook?

Decentralization could be applied to corporations like facebook, in terms of its leadership, decision making and authority structures becoming more democratic. A CEO based structure where Mark Zuckenberg ruled with absolute power could represent centralization. Decentralization could entail breaking up the power and authority of a single person and distributing it amongst multiple people. This would come with advantages and disadvantages of course.

The centralized arrangement could resemble a dictator state like north korea where Kim Jong rules within a centralized format. With decentralization being more like the united states where power is split between congress, a senate and a President.

I like the logic you presented here. Kim Jong Un and the US.  Actually, that is a very good example on how an ordinary individual can look at this scenario. So yes, these big platforms can play a decentralized system in some ways but there is some centralized part within its ecosystem. I think we can't avoid that.

[gentlemand]

Does decentralization mean something different in this regard?

In most cases 'we are building a decentralised xxxx' means they want your dollars and then they're going to disappear.

Most people don't want decentralisation in most areas of life let alone need it. They want someone to run what they use and whine to when it goes wrong.

When it comes to money there clearly is a case for it as financial abuse happens at every level which is why Bitcoin is still chugging.

For buying pants online or watching kitten videos why on Earth would I give a fuck whether it's centralised or not?

[jseverson]

Bitcoin has a decentralized ledger where all transactions are stored. How would that ledger look for a decentralized Youtube or Facebook?

Or am I missing something? Does decentralization mean something different in this regard?

There might be better implementations, but here's one which seems to work well enough:

diaspora* is completely different from most networks that you use. It is completely decentralized, with no central “hub”. Even so, it’s very easy to connect and communicate with people. Here’s how.

diaspora* is a true network, with no central base. There are servers (called “pods”) all over the world, each containing the data of those users who have chosen to register with it. These pods communicate with each other seamlessly, so that you can register with any pod and communicate freely with your contacts, wherever they are on the network.

Most social networks are run from centralized servers owned and run by a corporation. These store all the private data of their users. This information can be lost or hacked, and like any system with a bottleneck, any problem at the central servers can make the whole network run very slowly, or not at all. It is also more easy for governments to “listen in.”

It apparently has over a million users, so if you're interested in the concept, this seems like a perfect starting point.

[cosmofly]

I started to learn about crypto two months ago. Bitcoin, Monero, Ethereum etc. make total sense to me.

I can't, however, understand why it would make sense to decentralize large online platforms like Youtube and Facebook. Or let's say: I don't understand how this could work.

Bitcoin has a decentralized ledger where all transactions are stored. How would that ledger look for a decentralized Youtube or Facebook?

Or am I missing something? Does decentralization mean something different in this regard?

Thank you!

PS: I'm asking because I again and again read headlines that say something along the line of "everything will be decentralized".

In fact, decentralization is a system not managed by any organization and even in a trading system, it does not need to be intermediated. That's why people call the crypto market a decentralized market. This helps prevent information from being leaked out and makes it easier to swear money.
As for YouTube or Facebook, all videos or posts have someone who can intervene and it is not called decentralized.

[stompix]

Of course, NO. Though internet is decentralized because the distribution must be one way or another,

The Internet is not decentralized.
Stop paying your cable subscription and you will see how centralized it is.
How many times have countries blocked access? How decentralized is the internet behind the great firewall of china?

Besides, there are a few points where if you cut some cable you can shut down the internet in a whole country.
In happened with some drunk sailors dropping their anchors in 2008 and 2011 or when a granny was searching for scrap copper.

As for the decentralization of a platform, it reminds me of the old e-donkey and Kazaa times.
Because anyone could share a file and name it how he wanted you had a 49/49 chance of downloading either porn or viruses when trying to get a movie. Oly in the rest 2% you would really get what you wanted.
Take a look at how much fake stuff it deleted every day on TPB and why most torrenting website don't allow free submission.

Now imagine youtube with no laws, no registration required, no control....no nothing.
We already have thousands of scams and fake videos, it will turn to millions in a day.
And who will provide the space for all the crap that is uploaded?
Neah, it won't work.

Now even talking about the ads and redistribution model, without somebody to moderate bots will earn 1000x more than genuine content creators and will push those to seek another platform.

For buying pants online or watching kitten videos why on Earth would I give a fuck whether it's centralised or not?

How can you buy your pants without checking the blockchain to see if they are indeed the brand name, where they were manufactured and if they really use natural alpaca fibers? The age when you will need a smart contract to take a dump is here.

[desticy]

Pretty soon, we will all get an answer to this question, including you. There are several projects that somehow try to recreate the analogy of video streaming services such as YouTube and Twitch on a decentralized basis.
So far, such services have not gained much popularity and some kind of mass character in their use.
However, you need to understand that such platforms are difficult to develop and it is not always possible to make them more convenient than analogues that are very strong competitors.
An ordinary person often does not see the difference between a conventional service and a decentralized one, but it is possible that in the future the advantage of such services will largely outweigh the shortcomings of their old competitors.

[ashmodeus]

so far i see many project want to create something like that , but nothing good.
recently , we hear about BitTube, the next YouTube killer , but as the time goes , that just another dust on market.

PS: I'm asking because I again and again read headlines that say something along the line of "everything will be decentralized".

nah , i guess it not will be happen, many many exchange right now requiered KYC for buying or selling, and i guess all of decentralized will be Centralized, can u see Dex exchange still un popular .

[Gyfts]

Not at all. Youtube is owned by Google and are the experts in data mining personal user data for advertising. So is Facebook. Not sure why there would be a notion that you could possibly decentralize these giant corporations considering the fact they are publicly traded companies which owe it to their share holders to drive a profit.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

"Decentralization" is a huge buzzword these days, but I suspect that's all it is.  It makes sense for things like crypto, and in fact that's one of the biggest advantages of bitcoin, that there are miners all over the world maintaining its blockchain, and the fact that this job isn't being performed by a bank or government agency.

Other things, though?  Decentralization just doesn't lend itself to everything, and that probably includes social media sites.  I'm not even sure how that would work anyway, and if there was an advantage to a decentralized facebook, twitter, or youtube I suspect such a beast already would have been created and adopted. 

OP, you might want to give some thought about what the term means and why it's important to crypto but not necessarily everything else. 

[hatshepsut93]

Youtube isn't hard, it can be done via good old torrenting - you already can stream videos on some sites this way. Of course it won't be 100% like Youtube, since you can't take down your videos once they are there, but we can just call it a feature.

Facebook, however, is much different - it is inherently stateful, and immutability is unwanted here - imagine you want to delete some photos that you have made while you were drunk, or a post that you now regret - blockchain would make sure that it stays there forever.

[pixie85]

Technically speaking you can make a similar decentralized service but if you'r asking whether youtube itself can become decentralized the answer is no.

Why would they want that? They want full control and they already have it and are making money through it. They will never willingly decentralize their company because that would mean stepping away and giving it to the users.

[Shasha80]

In my opinion not everything can be decentralized, especially social media that are currently developing like youtube and Facebook.
I don't think it is possible for a platform as big as YouTube and Facebook to be decentralized, they are quite satisfied with income
earned until now. So from that where could they give up their full control, I think they are want to continue to control its users so
they can maximize the income they get. Not to mention the role of the government who wants also involved with a platform as big
as youtube and facebook will not give permission for that platform to change to decentralized.

[JeffBrad12]

I believe it can be decentralized but the real answer is, is it effective? there are so many projects out there trying to decentralize literally everything and ended up failing because no one uses thier product. Youtube can be decentralized, but then there'll be some technical problem occur if it's p2p and a decentralized social media is already existed I believe but not that popular.
Decentralized is good indeed but not that needed in some aspect of our life, it's just like how if things become too centralized it will be bad. Youtube and facebook are alrady having a good time with their centralized nature so I guess there's no point of switching over to decentralization, they will also have a hard time to manage everything including ads if that to happen.

[jostorres]

I am not sure where you get that information from, but not every platform has to be decentralized. Decentralization doesn't work for everything, not a must for social media like Facebook and YouTube that are already big and working with the government. They wouldn't agree to do such, because that's not how their business works. The business they are doing is mostly with the information you're giving to them, and things like that. Of course, there are platforms that are decentralized, but such is new and people don't show interest in them. Maybe as time goes by one of those will be able to climb up the ladder and gain recognition like other big names.

But if you ask me, I don't really see why these platforms should seek to be decentralized, I don't see any problem with how they are and the kind of service they offer. I'm good with it. When I think of decentralization, the only thing I think of is a cryptocurrency and nothing else and I don't even look forward to them gaining mainstream adoption, it's okay as it is, and you should use it just when you feel like it.

[Eclipse26]

You can't make Facebook and YouTube decentralized since it's a large company controlled by their creator. It's already been established and a big company so how come the owner of it would want it fo be decentralized? They're earning a lot already. It's not an easy process. Because people are already satisfied with what it is...

[BitHodler]

I think they don’t have have to switch to and they are created that way to juice data, new born decentralised social platforms are not so effective yet.

Totally agree. People here want to decentralize everything but don't realize that you don't have to do that, and that whatever we currently have that is decentralized, is not attracting a whole lot of demand.

Centralization is actually a good thing in case of YouTube because they can scale the platform endlessly and can easily manage the content uploaded to the platform.... decentralizing YouTube would mean the end of that platform.

Decentralization isn't a wonder pill that makes the world a better place.... only a few fields can benefit from decentralization, and then it's still a question whether people actually need it or not.

[amishmanish]

You can't make Facebook and YouTube decentralized since it's a large company controlled by their creator. It's already been established and a big company so how come the owner of it would want it fo be decentralized? They're earning a lot already. It's not an easy process. Because people are already satisfied with what it is...

One of the problems with blockchain solutions is that a lot of times they are trying to solve problems that do not exist. Platforms like Facebook and Youtube are not personal repositories for people that you can complain about "privacy".
If you are so concerned, then there simply is no need to announce yourself to the world.

The other concern is about censorship. We can all agree that certain content does need censorship and should be given no space for propagation. Yet, absolutely disgusting stuff easily finds its targets. Censorship related to ideas is something that is worrisome but it is again only a reflection of the way society is evolving. What maybe cool and politically correct today may not remain so tomorrow. Should the masses all  be left in their own silos of "decentralized platforms" where nobody has any control or can moderate what trolls can spew. I don't think so.

Like Pennyworth told Bruce in The Dark Knight, "Some men just want to watch the world burn". They will spew hatred and venom just for the sake of it. Decentralization doesn't work in this case, Centralization does.

[clickerz]

We can almost decentralised everything however its not easy job for these platforms to do so and switch right away. I think they don’t have have to switch to and they are created that way to juice data, new born decentralised social platforms are not so effective yet.

Since the advent of this blockchain technology, decentralization is the keyword here. Most projects that is utilized with the feature to decentralization. But this technology new that some industry is not yet ready, that's why the project adoption fails. Though we are going there, but slowly.

[Ucy]

Well, Blockchain is not really built for large files like video or audios. There are other better ways to decentralized such files, eg ipfs, freenet etc. I think we already have couple of video & social media sites that sre fairly decentralized. They store the large files mostly on ipfs.