Java未使用的变量 java从未使用导入

java 从未导入

There are so many people today focused on “re-decentralizing the web.” They have a popular belief that when the web was invented it was a wonderfully optimistic vision of decentralization, governed by democratic principles and full of free information available through open access that all of humanity would benefit from. They assume that originally all users of the web were well behaved and companies only wanted to help make the world better. Also, they think that somewhere along the line the web fell under the control of irresponsible corporations and governments and was contorted into the “broken and centralized” system that it is today.

Ť这里有这么多的人今天的重点是“ 重新下放网络。 他们普遍认为，网络的发明是一种非常乐观的权力下放愿景，它受到民主原则的支配，并通过开放获取的方式提供全人类免费的免费信息。 他们假设最初所有的网络用户都表现良好，而公司只希望帮助改善世界。 此外，他们认为网络上的某个地方受不负责任的公司和政府的控制，并被扭曲为当今的“破碎和集中化”系统。

The only problem with this myth is that none of it is true. Zero. Zilch. Goose-egg. Nichts. Nada, なし。The web was never decentralized and the for-profit centralization and surveillance of the web started almost immediately after it was created because it was baked into the design. The web we have today is the logical manifestation of continually improving the original design. With almost no decentralized solutions for any of the nine problems of distributed systems, the global surveillance capitalism system was absolutely inevitable from the very first day that Tim Berners-Lee started writing code.

这个神话的唯一问题是，没有一个是真的。 零。 齐尔奇 鹅蛋。 Nichts。 网络从未分散，并且在网络创建后几乎立即就开始了营利性网络的集中化和监视，因为它已经融入设计中。 我们今天拥有的网络是不断改进原始设计的逻辑体现。 对于分布式系统的九个问题，几乎没有分散的解决方案，从蒂姆·伯纳斯·李开始编写代码的第一天起，全球监控资本主义系统就绝对是不可避免的。

I’m sorry to tell you, but the web cannot be fixed. There’s not enough tweaking that can be done to make it more decentralized. The entire stack needs to be reinvented using fully decentralized solutions designed around the principles of user sovereignty to have any hope of making things better. If we did that, what would we have? I don’t think it would look like the web we know, but it would be better in every way.

很抱歉告诉您，但网络无法修复。 没有足够的调整来使其更加分散。 需要使用完全分散的解决方案来重塑整个堆栈，这些解决方案应围绕用户主权原则进行设计，以使一切变得更好。 如果我们做到了，那我们会有什么呢？ 我认为它看起来不像我们所知道的网络，但从各个方面来看都会更好 。

If you’re curious to refresh your memory before the analysis begins, here is the original proposal for the world wide web.

如果您想在分析开始之前刷新一下内存，这是万维网的原始建议。

(Getting the Story Straight)

I spent the day today grep’ing the internet for stories about the “re-decentralize the web” movement. There are many of them and nearly all of them repeat the popular lie about the original nature of the web. I found two exemplary articles to illustrate my point.

今天我花了整整一天时间在互联网上搜索有关“重新分散网络”运动的故事。 它们很多，而且几乎所有人都重复关于网络原始本质的流行谎言。 我找到了两个示例性文章来说明我的观点。

The first article is Brewster Kahle’s Decentralization: the next big step for the world wide web. Right away the author gets wrong the history of the web when he says:

第一篇文章是布鲁斯特·卡勒(Brewster Kahle)的《 分散化：互联网的下一步迈出了重要一步》 。 作者立即说错了网络历史：

In the early days of the world wide web, which came into existence in 1989, you connected directly with your friends through desktop computers that talked to each other. But from the early 2000s, with the advent of Web 2.0, we began to communicate with each other and share information through centralized services provided by big companies such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.

在1989年成立的万维网的早期，您是通过互相交谈的台式计算机直接与朋友联系的。 但是从2000年代初期开始，随着Web 2.0的出现，我们开始相互交流，并通过Google，Facebook，Microsoft和Amazon等大公司提供的集中服务共享信息。

So, web centralization started in the 2000s and it was the fault of Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon? Really? This is not true. The first wave of centralization of the web was promulgated by America Online (AOL) in the early 1990s. By the mid 90s, more than half of all internet users in America were AOL subscribers. AOL had an all encompassing “walled garden” that wasn’t separated from the dial-up and connect functionality. To connect to the internet, users were forced to run AOL’s version of it and for many users AOL was the internet.

那么，网络集中化始于2000年代，那是Google，Facebook，Microsoft和Amazon的错吗？ 真？ 这不是真的。 1990年代初期，美国在线(AOL)颁布了网络集中化的第一波浪潮。 到90年代中期，美国所有互联网用户中超过一半是AOL订户。 AOL拥有一个完整的“围墙花园”，它与拨号和连接功能没有分离。 为了连接到Internet，用户被迫运行AOL的版本，而对于许多用户来说，AOL 是 Internet。

The gate-keeping done by AOL drastically reduced the sovereignty of their users and it didn’t go unnoticed. The Wikipedia article on AOL mentions an article from the 1990’s that describes how customers were mad even back then:

美国在线(AOL)进行的关门大幅度降低了其用户的主权，而且并没有引起人们的注意。 在AOL上的Wikipedia文章中提到了1990年代的一篇文章，该文章描述了当时的客户是如何生气的：

There have been many complaints over rules that govern an AOL user’s conduct. Some users disagree with the TOS, citing the guidelines are too strict to follow coupled with the fact the TOS may change without users being made aware. A considerable cause for this was likely due to alleged censorship of user-generated content during the earlier years of growth for AOL.

对于控制AOL用户行为的规则有很多抱怨。 一些用户不同意TOS，理由是指南过于严格，无法遵循，而且TOS可能会在用户不知情的情况下发生变化。 造成这种情况的一个重要原因很可能是由于在AOL增长的前几年对用户生成的内容的审查。

Why do the complaints from the 1990s about “…the TOS may change without users being made aware.” and “…censorship of user-generated content…” sound so familiar? Oooh, that’s right, because the community guidelines and censorship rules keep changing on Twitter, Twitter again, Facebook, Facebook again, YouTube, and YouTube again!

为什么从1990年代开始抱怨“……TOS可能会在用户不知情的情况下发生变化。” 和“ ...对用户生成内容的审查...”听起来如此耳熟？ 噢，是的，因为社区准则和审查规则不断在Twitter ， Twitter ， Facebook ， Facebook ， YouTube和YouTube上不断变化！

Nothing has changed. AOL did all of the same things back in the 1990s that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube do today. The web was never decentralized. Web users have always been subject to gate-keeping, censorship, and monetization by large tech companies.

一切都没有改变。 在1990年代，AOL所做的所有事情都与Facebook，Twitter和YouTube今天所做的一样。 网络从未分散。 大型科技公司一直对Web用户进行监视，审查和货币化。

Lana Kane 拉娜·凯恩(Lana Kane)

The second article that I found is Ruben Verborgh’s Re-decentralizing the Web, for good this time. Nice title. Reading it made me think of only one thing: Lana. Here’s why. The author doesn’t hesitate at all. The very first line is the lie: “Originally designed as a decentralized network, the Web has undergone a significant centralization in recent years.” Again, the web has always been centralized, the decentralized feel came from the fact that it was originally a centralized system that only seemed decentralized because it was inefficient.

我发现的第二篇文章是Ruben Verborgh的Re-Decentralize the Web，这次很好 。 很好的标题。 阅读它使我只想到一件事：拉娜。 这就是为什么。 作者一点都不犹豫。 第一行的谎言是：“最初设计为分散式网络，近年来，Web经历了重要的集中化。” 同样，Web始终是集中式的，去中心化的感觉来自以下事实：它最初是一个集中式系统，由于效率低下而似乎只是去中心化了。

Farther down the article the author sort of goes in the right direction when he states:

在文章的更深处，当作者声明时，他会朝着正确的方向前进：

The concept of centralization does not pose a problem in and of itself: there are good reasons for bringing people and things together. The situation becomes problematic when we are robbed of our choice, deceived into thinking there is only one access gate to a space that, in reality, we collectively own.

集中化的概念本身并不会带来问题：将人与事物融合在一起是有充分理由的。 当我们失去选择权时，情况变得成问题，被认为是我们集体拥有的空间只有一个通道。

On second thought, I disagree with a lot of this. I would argue that any distributed system without solid decentralized solutions opens itself up to corporate capture and centralization. The profit to be earned from that centralization is a very strong motivator making the eventual capture and the resulting robbery of our choice and subjugation to gate-keeping is inevitable.

第二个想法，我不同意很多。 我会争辩说，任何没有可靠的分散式解决方案的分布式系统都将为企业捕获和集中化提供方便。 从集中化中获得的利润是一个很强的动力，使最终的捕获成为必然，因此我们选择的最终抢劫和对守门的屈服是不可避免的。

Centralization will always put profits over user sovereignty. It’s built into the venture capital deals and corporate fiduciary responsibility. Profit will always trump users’ interests.

集中化总是将利润置于用户主权之上。 它内置在风险投资交易和公司信托责任中。 利润将永远压倒用户的利益。

什么没有帮助 (What’s Not Helping)

Tim Berners-Lee (TBL) — the inventor of the web — wrote a post a few years ago outlining what he though were three major challenges to an open and free web. In it he lists the challenges as:

网络的发明者蒂姆·伯纳斯·李(TBL)几年前写了一篇文章，概述了他对开放和免费网络的三大挑战。 他在其中列出了以下挑战：

• We’ve lost control of our personal data.
• It’s too easy for misinformation to spread on the web.
• Political advertising online needs transparency and understanding.

I think the first point is an actual challenge, the other two are reflections of his own personal politics. What is important to point out is that these are all symptoms but not the problem. The problem lies with the fundamental design of the web and the web browser and the only way to fix it is to re-invent it from the ground up following the principles of user sovereignty to get a fully decentralized system for exchanging data on the internet.

我认为第一点是实际挑战，另外两点是他个人政治的反映。 需要指出的是，这些都是症状，但不是问题 。 问题在于网络和网络浏览器的基本设计，而对其进行修复的唯一方法是按照用户主权原则从头开始彻底重新发明它，以得到一个完全分散的系统来在Internet上交换数据。

(What Went Wrong?)

Pretty much everything went wrong from the start. To refresh everybody’s memory here are the nine problems of distributed systems:

从一开始，几乎所有东西都出错了。 为了刷新大家的记忆，这里是分布式系统的九个问题 ：

• Discovery
• Introduction
• Coherence
• Public Services
• Trust
• Privacy
• Coordination
• Membership
• Persistent State

Of these nine problems, only three — coherence, coordination and persistent state — were solved in an almost decentralized way. The other six weren’t even addressed. I’m not casting aspersions on TBL. It was impossible for him to be malicious when he and everybody else were just ignorant. Back then nobody had a coherent model and set of values for distributed system design. He was shooting from the hip and can be forgiven for the shortcomings in the proposal. The point is, the lack of decentralized solutions back in 1989 guaranteed the creation of the centralized surveillance capitalism web that we have today.

在这九个问题中，连贯性，协调性和持久性状态中只有三个是以几乎分散的方式解决的。 其他六个甚至都没有解决。 我不是在TBL上撒谎。 当他和其他所有人都不懂事的时候，他就不可能变得恶意。 那时，没有人拥有一个一致的模型和用于分布式系统设计的一组值。 他是从臀部开枪，因此提案中的缺点可以原谅。 关键是，早在1989年就缺乏分散式解决方案，这确保了我们今天拥有的集中式监视资本主义网络的建立。

Let’s go through all of the problems and talk about how the web did or did not address them.

让我们研究所有问题，并讨论网络如何解决这些问题。

(Discovery)

Discovery is the process by which new users/nodes find and connect with other nodes to form a network or to join an existing one. In the case of the web, you had to know the domain name of the web server ahead of time. Back in the summer of 1992, I personally had a sheet of 8.5" x 11" lined paper with the domain names of every web server in the world. If I recall correctly, it was around thirty or forty servers. Shortly after that, the publications that tracked the BBS world began publishing directories of web server domain names and it all culminated in the publishing of annual “internet guides” containing reviews and highlights of places to go on the web. This is a fun read if you want to know how us old-timers did it.

发现是新用户/节点查找并与其他节点连接以形成网络或加入现有网络的过程。 对于Web，您必须提前知道Web服务器的域名。 早在1992年夏天，我个人就有一张8.5英寸x 11英寸的横格纸，上面写着世界上每个 Web服务器的域名。 如果我没记错的话，那是大约三十或四十台服务器。 在那之后不久，追踪BBS世界的出版物开始发布Web服务器域名目录，所有这些最终都以年度“互联网指南”的发布为高潮，其中包含对网络上访问地点的评论和重点内容。 如果您想知道我们的老朋友是如何做的， 这是一本有趣的书。

The discovery problem was quickly solved by corporations creating centralized services. Back in 1994 we saw the rise of the first big search engines: WebCrawler, Lycos and Infoseek. In 1995 Yahoo!, AltaVista, and Excite. Google didn’t start until 1998. It was Infoseek, one of the very first search engines, that invented the business model around selling ad impressions on the web and mining the data of the searches. From its infancy, the web was not safe if you wanted to avoid surveillance.

通过创建集中服务的公司，Swift解决了发现问题。 早在1994年，我们就看到了第一个大型搜索引擎的兴起：WebCrawler，Lycos和Infoseek。 1995年，Yahoo！，AltaVista和Excite。 Google直到1998年才开始运作。Infoseek是最早的搜索引擎之一，它发明了围绕在网络上出售广告展示并挖掘搜索数据的商业模型。 从一开始，如果您想避免监视，网络就不安全。

Of course we all know the impact Google has on the web today. They weaponized what Infoseek invented and it was all possible due to the lack of a decentralization discovery solution from the start.

当然，我们都知道Google今天对网络的影响。 他们使用了Infoseek发明的武器，由于一开始就缺乏分散式发现解决方案，因此一切皆有可能。

(Introduction, Trust and Privacy)

Introduction, Trust and Privacy weren’t addressed at all in the early web. It wasn’t until the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) protocol in 1995 and later the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol in 1999 that the web began using cryptography to solve these problems. The only issue with the solution is the top-down, centralized nature of the Certificate Authority (CA) system. Web site operators and users alike had to pay lots of money and undergo scrutiny to be issued an official certificate that web browsers recognized. This centralized rent seeking and gate keeping slowed the adoption of SSL/TLS and as a result the web wasn’t mostly encrypted until 2020. Why did it take so long and what changed to make it happen? The Let’s Encrypt Project happened. Started in 2012, the Let’s Encrypt Project began giving away TLS certificates for free. By 2020 they had given away more than one billion certificates and more than 90% of all web page loads use encryption.

早期的网络根本没有涉及介绍，信任和隐私。 直到1995年的安全套接字层(SSL)协议以及后来的1999年的传输层安全性(TLS)协议，网络才开始使用加密技术来解决这些问题。 该解决方案的唯一问题是证书颁发机构(CA)系统的自上而下的集中式特性。 网站运营商和用户都必须付出大量金钱并经过仔细审查，才能获得网络浏览器认可的官方证书。 这种集中式的寻租和关门操作减慢了SSL / TLS的采用速度，结果，直到2020年才对网络进行大部分加密。为什么要花这么长时间，要做出什么改变？ “ 让我们加密项目”发生了。 从2012年开始，Let's Encrypt Project开始免费提供TLS证书。 到2020年，他们已经发放了超过10亿张证书，所有网页加载的90％以上都使用加密。

However, all is not puppy dogs and rainbows. The centralized CA system has been abused by governments around the world to surreptitiously spy on web traffic that users thought was encrypted. By forcing state telecoms and other root certificate authorities to issue false certificates for domain names such as google.com or facebook.com, government surveillance authorities can trick browsers into thinking a connection to a web server is encrypted and private when there really is a government spy in the middle. I can’t imagine how many people have been fined or imprisoned in corrupt countries using this spying technique. The web’s lack of a decentralized solution for these problems puts some web users at risk, even today.

但是，一切都不是小狗和彩虹。 集中式CA系统已被世界各国政府滥用，秘密监视用户认为已加密的Web流量。 通过强制国家电信公司和其他根证书颁发机构为诸如google.com或facebook.com之类的域名颁发虚假证书，政府监视机构可以诱使浏览器认为在确实存在政府的情况下与Web服务器的连接是加密的并且是私有的中间有间谍 。 我无法想象使用这种间谍技术在腐败国家中有多少人被罚款或监禁。 Web缺乏针对这些问题的分散式解决方案，即使在今天，也使某些Web用户面临风险。

(Coherence, Coordination and Persistent State)

To it’s credit, the web does completely solve the coordination problem. The HTTP protocol does provide all of the capabilities to do all necessary communication within the system. The other two problems of coherence and persistent state are the ones I identified as being half-solved in the original web proposal. Clients that wish to reconnect to a web server (i.e. coherence) only need to know the domain name of the server and their computer is able to get the updated IP address of the server. The persistent state solution is the storage of content in HTML files on those server. The web’s storage model is decentralized. However, both solutions are only half-solutions because they both rely heavily on the centralized Domain Name System (DNS). The DNS system has been used by governments and abused by hackers to deny access to web servers and/or hijack them and take them over.

值得称赞的是，网络确实可以完全解决协调问题。 HTTP协议确实提供了在系统内进行所有必要通信的所有功能。 一致性和持久状态的另外两个问题是我确定在原始Web投标中已解决的一半。 希望重新连接到Web服务器(即一致性)的客户端只需要知道服务器的域名，他们的计算机就可以获取服务器的更新IP地址。 持久状态解决方案是将内容存储在这些服务器上HTML文件中。 Web的存储模型是分散的。 但是，这两种解决方案都只是一半解决方案，因为它们都严重依赖集中式域名系统(DNS)。 DNS系统已被政府使用， 并被黑客滥用以拒绝访问Web服务器和/或劫持Web服务器并将其接管。

(Public Services)

In the case of the web, public services are web sites that offer publishing of content. The web design had no easy way for new users to publish content and in the beginning it was a daunting task. First you had to buy a domain name that wasn’t cheap. Then you had to set up a computer that would never crash and would stay running even when the power went out. Next you had to get a web server set up and then after all of that you had to hand write an HTML file for your web server to serve to web browsers.

就网络而言，公共服务是提供内容发布的网站。 对于新用户而言，Web设计没有简单的方法来发布内容，一开始这是一项艰巨的任务。 首先，您必须购买一个并不便宜的域名。 然后，您必须设置一台永远不会崩溃并且即使断电也能保持运行的计算机。 接下来，您必须设置一个Web服务器，然后所有这些都必须手动编写一个HTML文件，以供Web服务器提供给Web浏览器。

The original web proposal assumed that the web would only ever be used by academics and business people with access to mainframes that were cared for like prized ponies. It never occurred to TBL that his vision of a “world-wide web” necessarily included all of the people in the world having access. Did he expect that everybody would be tied to a university or a business to be able to publish and contribute? No. He thought the web was mostly read only. He has even said as much on multiple occasions. His new work is around building a read/write web. Even he knows the lack of a decentralized public service for publishing content is a major design flaw.

最初的网络建议假定该网络仅能被访问了像珍贵小马一样受到照顾的大型机的学者和商人使用。 TBL从未想到他对“万维网”的愿景必然包括世界上所有可以使用的人。 他是否期望每个人都能够被大学或企业束缚，以便能够发表和贡献？ 否。他认为网络大部分是只读的。 他甚至多次说了很多话。 他的新工作是围绕建立读写网络。 甚至他都知道，缺乏用于发布内容的分散公共服务是主要的设计缺陷。

This non-solution left a gaping hole so large that the economic opportunity for centralization by corporations created more billion dollar companies than anything else in history. The first company to tackle it was GeoCities. Back in 1995 they began offering a free space for users to create their own web page. By 1997, GeoCities began placing advertisements on users’ pages and despite the negative reaction, the site continued to grow. In 1999, GeoCities was acquired by Yahoo for $3.57 billion in stock and it was the third most visited site on the web.

这种非解决方案留下了一个巨大的漏洞，以至于企业集权的经济机会创造了数十亿美元的公司，这比历史上的其他任何公司都要多。 解决这个问题的第一家公司是GeoCities。 早在1995年，他们就开始为用户提供免费空间来创建自己的网页。 到1997年，GeoCities开始在用户页面上投放广告，尽管出现了负面React，但网站仍在不断发展。 1999年，GeoCities被雅虎以35.7亿美元的股票价格收购，它是访问量排名第三的网站。

Many other companies followed to fill in finer niches of the web publishing market. Blogging took off with the launch of LiveJournal and blogger.com in 1999. YouTube for videos in 2005. Twitter, in 2006, for voyeuristically watching celebrities, crushes and arguing with political enemies. SoundCloud for music in 2007. Github for open source software in 2008. The list goes on. All of these companies are, or have been, valued at more than a billion dollars.

随后，许多其他公司也填补了网络出版市场的空白。 随着1999年LiveJournal和blogger.com的推出，博客开始兴起。2005年，YouTube录播了视频。2006年，Twitter了，目的是偷窥名人，暗恋对象以及与政治敌人争吵。 适用于音乐的SoundCloud于2007年。适用于开源软件的Github于2008年。 所有这些公司的价值已经或已经超过十亿美元。

Those companies are now centralized and entrenched castles of surveillance capitalism. They use the features of web servers and web browsers to track users everywhere they go and to monetize that data. In the case of Github being purchased by Microsoft, the centralization threatens the independence of large swaths of the open source software community.

这些公司现在是监视资本主义的中心化和根深蒂固的城堡。 他们使用Web服务器和Web浏览器的功能来跟踪用户所到之处并通过这些数据获利。 在微软收购Github的情况下，集中化威胁到开源软件社区的广大独立性。

Imagine if the web had been designed differently. What if the web browser had also been a web server? Just downloading it would make it simple to browse and publish. Would we have seen the rise of all of those companies? Probably. Why? Because the layers below the web — the domain name system, HTTP, etc — also had to be in place. But assuming there was a ubiquitous fabric for storing the published data and keeping it available, it would have only taken a web browser and server combination — the read/write web as TBL puts it — and all of those companies may have been entirely unnecessary.

想象一下，如果网络设计不同。 如果网络浏览器也曾是网络服务器怎么办？ 只需下载它，即可轻松浏览和发布。 我们会看到所有这些公司的崛起吗？ 大概。 为什么？ 因为网络下的各层(域名系统，HTTP等)也必须存在。 但是，假设存在一种无处不在的结构来存储已发布的数据并保持其可用性，那么它只需要使用Web浏览器和服务器的组合(如TBL所说的读/写Web)就可以了，所有这些公司可能都完全没有必要。

(Membership)

The last major non-solution in the original design of the web deals with authentication and authorization. The membership problem is how users of a distributed system form relationships with other users, granting them a higher level of privileges. This can be an employee or admin accessing private company documents. It can be friends sharing photos privately. The membership problem assumes graduated privileges based on the authentication and authorization mechanism a system uses.

Web原始设计中的最后一个主要非解决方案涉及身份验证和授权。 成员资格问题是分布式系统的用户如何与其他用户形成关系，从而向他们授予更高级别的特权。 这可以是访问私人公司文档的员工或管理员。 可以是朋友私下分享照片。 成员资格问题基于系统使用的身份验证和授权机制假定分级特权。

The web didn’t get authentication until 1997. It operated for nearly a decade without any way to differentiate users and delegate privileges. When authentication finally came, it was bound to single domain names and it was based on things users know (e.g. username and password). Because it was so intimately tied to the centralized domain name system, there was no way a user could be issued a credential that was portable across different web sites.

Web直到1997年才获得身份验证。它运行了将近十年，没有任何方法来区分用户和委派特权。 身份验证终于到来时，它绑定到单个域名，并且基于用户知道的内容(例如，用户名和密码)。 由于它与集中式域名系统密切相关，因此无法向用户颁发可在不同网站之间移植的凭据。

The solution didn’t really come until 2005 with the invention of the OpenID authentication protocol and later in 2009 with OAuth. Together they allow for cross-domain authentication, letting users log into sites using their Twitter, Google, or Facebook credentials. This too has many serious problems because of the foundation it is built upon. It is tied to the domain name system and to large social media platforms because it doesn’t use portable authentication credentials.

直到2005年，OpenID身份验证协议的发明才真正实现了该解决方案，2009年晚些时候，OAuth诞生了。 它们共同支持跨域身份验证，使用户可以使用其Twitter，Google或Facebook凭据登录网站。 由于其基础，这也存在许多严重的问题。 它与域名系统和大型社交媒体平台绑定在一起，因为它不使用便携式身份验证凭据。

As a consequence, if you use your Twitter credentials to log into many different sites and then you say the wrong thing on Twitter and get banned, not only do you lose access to your data you uploaded to Twitter but also to your data that you uploaded to the websites you use your Twitter credentials with. The same goes for logging in with Facebook and Google credentials. The best solution for authentication and authorization on the web today is a centralized one that magnifies the censorship power of the large social media platforms. What could possibly go wrong?

结果，如果您使用Twitter凭据登录许多不同的站点，然后在Twitter上说错了话并被禁止，不仅您将失去对上传到Twitter的数据的访问权限，而且会失去对上传的数据的访问权限到您使用Twitter凭据的网站。 使用Facebook和Google凭据登录也是如此。 当今，Web上用于身份验证和授权的最佳解决方案是一种集中式解决方案，它可以放大大型社交媒体平台的审查功能。 可能出什么问题了？

It didn’t have to be like this. The decentralized identity community is building the new standards around portable, verifiable credentials. They have shown us that we can have credential “wallets” and use them across sites and remain fully in control of those credentials. With this new system for creating trusted connections and verifiable credentials users maintain their sovereignty.

不必一定是这样。 分散式身份社区正在围绕可移植的可验证凭据建立新的标准 。 他们向我们表明，我们可以拥有凭据“钱包”，并在各个站点中使用它们，并完全控制这些凭据。 有了这个用于创建可信连接和可验证凭据的新系统，用户可以维护自己的主权。

(Conclusion)

In the light of experience hard won over three decades, it is now possible to see exactly what went wrong with the web and when. It was not centralization by big tech companies like Facebook and Google. It did not happen in the 2000’s. The design flaws were baked into the cake from day one. It didn’t become worse, the flaws became more obvious.

根据三十年来的辛苦经验，现在可以确切地看到网络出了什么问题以及何时出了问题。 它不是像Facebook和Google这样的大型科技公司的集中化。 它在2000年代没有发生。 从第一天开始，设计缺陷就被烤成了蛋糕。 它并没有变得更糟，缺陷变得更加明显。

(So?! How Do We Fix It? Where Do We Go From Here?)

I know I like to joke about it’s time to burn down the social media platforms and break up the giant tech companies but that’s just cathartic ranting. The best news I have to give you is that we only have to ignore them and build the internet we want from the ground up. I reject the status quo. It is time to build a ubiquitous mix net that is pseudonymous and private and encrypted by default. It is time to build new user sovereign services that run on top of it. I no longer hate the social media platforms; I don’t care about them anymore. The opposite of love isn’t hate, it is indifference.

我知道我很想开玩笑，现在该是烧毁社交媒体平台并拆分大型科技公司的时候了，但这只是在宣泄骚扰。 我要给您的最好的消息是，我们只需要忽略它们，并从头开始构建我们想要的互联网即可。 我拒绝现状。 现在是时候建立一个普遍存在的混合网络 ，该网络是匿名的和私有的，并且默认情况下是加密的。 现在该构建在其之上运行的新的用户主权服务了。 我不再讨厌社交媒体平台； 我不在乎他们了。 爱的对立面不是恨，而是冷漠。

Do you still use Usenet groups? How about Gopher? When was the last time you chatted with a friend using ICQ or AIM? How about the last time you played a Flash game on the web? Technology evolves and obsolete technologies fade away. The interesting thing about Usenet and Gopher and ICQ and Flash is that their users liked those tools even when they switched away. They switched away because there were better alternatives, not because they hated them.

您仍在使用Usenet组吗？ Gopher呢？ 您上次使用ICQ或AIM与朋友聊天是什么时候？ 上次您在网络上玩Flash游戏怎么样？ 技术在发展，过时的技术逐渐消失。 Usenet和Gopher以及ICQ和Flash的有趣之处在于，即使他们离开了，他们的用户也喜欢这些工具。 他们之所以离开是因为有更好的选择，而不是因为他们讨厌它们。

Tons of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube users actually dislike — and many hate — them for how they treat their users. The arbitrary censorship and demonetization coupled with the creepy surveillance and emotional manipulation has created a very large and vocal group of anti-users. Many anti-users have moved on to alternative services such as Gab, Mastodon and Bitchute but that won’t bring down the system. Why? Because the alternatives are just copy cats. They aren’t convincingly better. They are constructed within the same constraints and bad architecture of the web that Facebook and Twitter and YouTube operate in. Users don’t believe Gab when they claim they won’t censor posts and spy on their users. Censorship and surveillance are built into the fabric of the web and therefore any alternative built using the web will also enable censorship and surveillance.

实际上，Facebook，Twitter和YouTube用户的吨位因他们对待用户的方式而实际上不喜欢，并且很多人讨厌。 任意审查和取消通行，再加上令人毛骨悚然的监视和情感操纵 ，造就了庞大且反响强烈的反用户群体。 许多反用户已开始使用替代服务，例如Gab ， Mastodon和Bitchute，但这不会降低系统的安全性。 为什么？ 因为替代品只是模仿猫。 他们没有令人信服的更好。 它们是在Facebook和Twitter和YouTube所处的网络相同的约束和不良架构的基础上构建的。当用户声称自己不会审查帖子并监视用户时，他们不相信Gab。 审查和监视内置于Web的结构中，因此，使用Web构建的任何替代方案也将启用审查和监视。

The only answer is to build a completely new stack from the ground up that is fully user sovereign and decentralized. Then, and only then, can we build information sharing and social applications that cannot be censored and cannot be used for surveillance capitalism and societal manipulation. Users will have the choice of what to see, hear, and read and what not to see, hear, and read. Freedom is messy. If you want to be free you will have to build your own fence, sweep your own sidewalk and work with your friends and neighbors to pick up the trash in your part of the internet.

唯一的答案是从头开始建立一个完全由用户主权和权力下放的全新堆栈。 然后，只有到那时，我们才能建立不能被审查并且不能用于监督资本主义和社会操纵的信息共享和社会应用。 用户可以选择看到，听到和阅读的内容以及不看到，听到和阅读的内容。 自由是混乱的。 如果您想要自由，则必须建立自己的栅栏，扫除自己的人行道并与您的朋友和邻居一起在互联网中捡拾垃圾。

翻译自: https://medium.com/design-warp/the-web-was-never-decentralized-bb066138c88

java 从未导入