3 ms·
I personally favor the federated model. In there, you can have some communities that run co-op and some that are free to use. It also makes the ecosystem more
by zaarn 8y ago
I personally favor the federated model.
In there, you can have some communities that run co-op and some that are free to use. It also makes the ecosystem more open compared to centrally managed software, even if it's transparent and without dark patterns.
(Plus, how do you police it if you're talking about a company that is well versed in the art of 'taking it over the line by 1 inch per year')
- decasia 8y agoFederated communities would be neat and basically are how the "real world" already interconnects, socially speaking. I don't think that's exclusive of what I had in mind. But you have to actually have the communities before you can do the federation (this is also how it works in the offline world — it's not like people design interoperability protocols and THEN found villages).
- hannasanarion 8y agoSo what you're saying is, we should try to convince the existing villages (Facebook, reddit, Twitter) to adopt interoperability protocols?
- decasia 8y agoHa no, of course I think that is impossible. It's more like: we could build nicer, community-funded, sanely run social software, and alongside them we could support XMPP type features for hackers who are able to use them, or to interoperate with other alternative online communities that may be emerging.
- zaarn 8y agoNah, I would favor a pitchfork-and-torches approach to Facebook and Twitter, the entire company behind it is so unlikely to change that a radical rebuild is required.