Back in the very old days of email, running an email server was a serious challenge for many reasons, like the cost of hardware, the cost of software, the cost of bandwidth, the cost of support services, and the cost of securing email and fighting spam. At that time big tech recognized the opportunity to provide easy to use email services for small companies and small communities, and thus Google started Google apps, and Microsoft started selling Exchange in the form of software as a service.
Big tech have turned many public opinion leaders into cyber-refugees. Their ideas are considered risky, their content is considered in some type of violation to some type of rules, and their funding is being drained in spite of the backers will. This wave of censorship was not the first, and it will not be the last. I have previously explained how this type of censorship is being monetized, and I think a complete echo system is now being setup so that anybody can be censored risk-free to the censors.
Remember Jeremy, our fictitious content creator from the previous article. He came to visit me with Jim and Marc to discuss our reservations on the alternative blockchain-based social networks. They provided compelling arguments about blockchain benefits over traditional centralized databases, and talked religiously about our individual role in decentralizing the internet and building the future web.
In my previous article in the series, I highlighted the importance of context when evaluating solutions. Now I would like to start with a specific context, identify the problem, and look for specific solutions.
I have worked for many years as a person who understands problems, evaluates them, and recommends solutions to address them. My domain of experience is the internet, and my customers were undertaking some type of endeavor on the web. During these years I have come to learn a simple thing about solutions: they have advantages and disadvantages for each context. A solution might be good enough for a specific problem in a certain context, and not good at all for an identical problem in a different context.