A Domain of One’s Own in a Post-Ownership Society
Audrey Watters

I agree with the gist of your argument. We are in a world where the land is possessed by the few, the Digital-Landlords and we, the commoners, can only exist through the signature of Emphyteutic-like leases. In fact, those leases are in a sense even worse than emphyteusis, a practice that emerged during colonial term and akin to serfdom: emphyteusis rights could be transferred to heirs.

There is no reason that the current efforts to re-decentralise the Web cannot lead to full ownership of digital goods, including the right to transmit them. A distributed Web means that we can literally own a bit of the land, not just rent it from Digital-Landlords.

A Domain of One’s Own is a great start, but even domain names are rented. The re-decentralisation of the Web should include the ability to create our own identifiers (often confused with ‘identity’) for free. If an almost unlimited number of identifiers is possible, why should we pay for them?

NB: with IP V6 we have 2^128 possible addresses, i.e. 3.4 * 10^38 unique values — there are approximately 10^80 elementary particles in the observable universe.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.