Isn't it funny how within 24h the approach to #Keybase changed from "it's secure and awesomesauce, use it for everything!!1!" to "I just use it to share stuff but warn users not to do sensitive stuff there"?

No, actually it's not funny. Because it keeps happening:

1. a new shiny startup does X in an open source but centralized way
2. a lot of "experts" saying how great it is; some greybeards warn that it's centralized but nobody listens - it's so shiny and cool!
(cont.)

(cont.)
3. startup makes a horrible business decision or gets bought up by someone onerous; it's inevitable, it's a startup.
4. everybody's shocked, shocked™, but still go with "using it for non-sensitive stuff, too late to move on"
5. rinse, repeat.

Do you know why we don't get a proper, decentralized, easy to use software solutions? This is why. Because we keep letting shitty startups crowd out the good projects.

(cont.)

(cont.)

Security is hard. Decentralization is hard. Usability is hard.

Being first to market is *easier* if you drop some, or most, of these.

So, shitty startups get to market first, and then crowd out the decent-but-necessarily-slower projects.

Every time you recommend a tool that follows this pattern of abuse, you are enabling it. You, personally, become a part of the problem. You, personally, help a shitty startup crowd out a decent project.

(cont.)

Follow

@rysiek The key is, startups aren’t wrong about the MVP concept, that an idea’s viability can be tested via the most minimal version of itself.

We need to build a social system that
a) sees how societally crucial privacy and security are
b) has tech to quantify how good an app or system is at these

Then the MVP definition will have to include better security and privacy.

Societally: it’s a super new problem culture hasn’t adapted to yet.

Tech: quantifying is super hard.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Ruby.social

A Mastodon instance for Rubyists & friends