[p2p-research] "Many of us will not send mail to gmail.com"

Sun May 10 08:51:48 CEST 2009

yes by all means, efforts should continue, though I expect that it will be
extremely difficult to overcome the network benefits accrued by google ..

Michel

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no way for a data center, no matter how large it is, to match
> the storage capacity of a fully redundant p2p storage architecture, so
> your email can be stored in the p2p cloud, in geographically
> always-redundant manner. Obviously, with each new paradigm there are
> challenges that get worked out over time and with accumulation of
> expertise.
>
> I disagree with the notion that just because Google makes it
> convenient that we should stop the process of creative destruction
> that is so essential to growth.
>
> So there is a stark disagreement here centering around convenience vs
> principle (or more specifically your convenience and my principle)
>
> hope that helps.
>
> Marc
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'll second wholeheartedly this explanation by Ryan,
> >
> > especially for non-tech oriented people like myself, we want to drive the
> > car, but are not interested in knowledge about the motor.
> >
> > Gmail has by far the most interesting ecology of services, it is what
> made
> > the crucial difference that losing my laptop without backup wasn't
> actually
> > a catastrophe, because my material is available through the gmail
> archive.
> > Centralization is not inherently worse in terms of robustness. Full p2p
> > architectures would have their own problems.
> >
> > I've yet to encounter, at 51 years of age, my first real problem with
> > privacy, and have never clicked on an online ad, as far as I can
> remember.
> >
> > We have to use products from capitalist enterprises for almost everything
> we
> > do, I don't see gmail being different essentially from buying a
> > corporate-made hifi station.
> >
> > There are many struggles to be fought, and gmail is an efficient tool to
> > communicate,
> >
> > Google is a netarchical capitalist, part shark, these practices are
> > negative, part dolphin, it has to enable our social cooperation, that is
> > positive; we have to learn to distinguish, using whatever can help our
> cause
> > and human cooperation.
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Marco,
> >>
> >> Gmail is a function rich, highly secure, free service (for seeing some
> >> ads...which to my ways of thinking is a good deal if not pure free).  It
> >> gives me huge amounts of free disk space, free file support etc.
> Someone
> >> may be paying, but it isn't me.  And I disagree with Marc that these
> >> services are inherently expensive to society.  Corporations can be quite
> >> efficient, and I believe Google is so, bye and large.
> >>
> >> I've long ago given up on strong expectations of privacy.  What do I
> have
> >> to hide that isn't inherently coded and defended by other service
> providers
> >> (e.g. banks) anyway?
> >>
> >> I love GMAIL and recommend it continually--over the years I've probably
> >> put 200 people on it.  I've used many a university system, and am forced
> to
> >> use the hated MS Outlook at the office.  I can get my mail anywhere on
> the
> >> planet, be relatively confident that it will be available, that people
> won't
> >> miss spell my provider / host, etc. I might add that I am fiercely pro
> Open
> >> Net, Open Architecture, etc.  That said, my house has Linux computers, a
> Mac
> >> and even MS Windows XP.
> >>
> >> In gmail I can also chat with many friends within it, link it to my
> >> calendar, carry on video (when my Sony is willing) and find many of
> their
> >> lab features such as embedded search, etc. extremely useful.
> >>
> >> As I have said, I'm not a political zealot for P2P.  It isn't an
> >> idealism--it is, to me, a ethos.  I recognize it as a valuable set of
> ideas
> >> whose time has come.  If its time passes, I'll shed no tears and will be
> on
> >> to the next most moral and productive
> ethos/approach/system/architecture.  I
> >> do believe there are reasons to think P2P represents the most stable
> form of
> >> social relationships given a certain level of technology
> infrastructure.  I
> >> believe it is compatible with any range of political and economic
> systems
> >> simultaneously to existing on its own--and P2P systems from China to Sri
> >> Lanka to New York City prove that to me.
> >>
> >> Give me a free/easy, stable, feature equal or similar facility on P2P
> and
> >> I'll be there tomorrow (or even today).  I could probably solve the
> problem
> >> for myself given enough time and effort, but my time is valuable to me
> to
> >> use in other ways.  I'd gladly donate money to an Apache-like
> organization
> >> to solve email through some other mechanism, but short of that, I don't
> have
> >> any moral issues at all using Gmail or any Google product.  Google Maps
> is
> >> superior in my view to competitors, so is their search.  I've shared
> many
> >> documents with it, and I like their innovations.
> >>
> >> Wordpress is far superior to Blogger.  When I blog, I use Wordpress,
> which
> >> is more conventionally open/non-profit.  On the other hand, I personally
> >> find Google to be more ethical in its governance, employee treatment,
> public
> >> positions, etc. than most firms.  I really have no issues at all in
> >> supporting/using them.  That said, when something better or freer
> matches
> >> it, I'd be quick to switch.  If P2P adapts a radical anti-market
> posture, it
> >> will fail.
> >>
> >> Ryan Lanham
> >> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 10:47 AM, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There is a question I asked yesterday in the "p2p email" thread that
> >>> went lost in the discussion, so I thought it could be interesting /
> >>> worthwhile to make a new thread of it. Yesterday I wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > What I've been sincerely wondering for months now is how it's
> >>> > possible that a p2p-research and advocacy list, of all places, has
> >>> > so many members "running" their own email with gmail, that is in the
> >>> > way which is as far as possible from P2P ideals and suggested
> >>> > practices, a way which relies on one huge provider with bunches of
> >>> > large, very centrally managed data centers. I'm on tenths of lists
> >>> > and the percentage of gmail addresses among, say, the 20/30% most
> >>> > active users is far higher here than in any other of them.
> >>>
> >>> Another reason not to use centralized providers is privacy. The
> >>> subject of this email is a quote from http://gmail-is-too-creepy.com/,
> >>> which I invite everybody to read carefully, even if with a mandatory
> >>> disclaimer:
> >>>
> >>>      the style of that whole website is a bit too much dramatic for
> >>>      my taste, and above all it seems stuck to ~5 years ago. I don't
> >>>      use Gmail, so I don't know if the reason is that the webmaster
> >>>      was too busy to update the page or that the situation hasn't
> >>>      changed.
> >>>
> >>> But even if there are many specific informations which are outdated
> >>> now, I believe the gist of the page is still quite a valid summary of
> >>> all the privacy related reasons why one should avoid Gmail or any
> >>> other global email provider.
> >>>
> >>> So why do so many subscribers of a list like this, ie people
> >>> interested in P2P-ness and, often, also in civil rights issues, use
> >>> Gmail?
> >>>
> >>>        Marco Fioretti
> >>> --
> >>> Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on
> how
> >>> software is used *around* you:
> http://digifreedom.net/node/84
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> p2presearch mailing list
> >>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> >>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> p2presearch mailing list
> >> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> >> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> > http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >
> > Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> > http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> > http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
> >
> > Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
> >
> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> > http://www.shiftn.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > p2presearch mailing list
> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marc Fawzi
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>

-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090510/9120054a/attachment.html>