3 ms·

I think this is why we need more federated social media, based on protocols, just like I can own my email account (by getting a domain, for example) and I can m

by galbar 6y ago

I think this is why we need more federated social media, based on protocols, just like I can own my email account (by getting a domain, for example) and I can move it accross providers and interoperate with other people on other providers. I would be able to choose the provider that I trust the most (or self-host) and even move to another provider, while still being able to participate in the global conversation. This way we'd also have different fronts (apps, websites, clients, etc.) to this network, each of them editorializing it however they please. I'd own my account, my posts and I'd be able to choose which front I want to use to interact with the network. Users would be responsible for what they post and fronts would be responsible for what they show, if they choose to filter and/or promote content.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
That's something very different...that's just saying, you can be your own provider if you want. That won't actually improve rights for most people, kind of like being your own bank is not a remedy for most people. The important thing is improved rights to what's in the account, and improved rights to damages when it is credibly harmed.
- galbar 6y ago
  My point is that if you are free to change provider without having to quit access to your existing network (same username/handle and connections), then you are free to backup your data and move it around to different social media providers. At that point you are not at the will of one centralized company. If you feel like your rights are being violated, you can change provider. Following your parallelism with banks: if I have my money in bank A and I don't like how it is operating I am free to change from bank A to bank B.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    Yeah, if it's provider portability you're talking about. I misunderstood your post initially to be a suggestion that people should self-host everything. Greater property rights in our online accounts would be de jure decentralization since the ability to take it all with us -- content, contacts, &c -- would be part of that.

by galbar 6y ago

solidsnack9000 6y ago

That's something very different...that's just saying, you can be your own provider if you want. That won't actually improve rights for most people, kind of like being your own bank is not a remedy for most people. The important thing is improved rights to what's in the account, and improved rights to damages when it is credibly harmed.

galbar 6y ago
My point is that if you are free to change provider without having to quit access to your existing network (same username/handle and connections), then you are free to backup your data and move it around to different social media providers. At that point you are not at the will of one centralized company. If you feel like your rights are being violated, you can change provider. Following your parallelism with banks: if I have my money in bank A and I don't like how it is operating I am free to change from bank A to bank B.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  Yeah, if it's provider portability you're talking about. I misunderstood your post initially to be a suggestion that people should self-host everything. Greater property rights in our online accounts would be de jure decentralization since the ability to take it all with us -- content, contacts, &c -- would be part of that.