3 ms·
The general argument is that open protocols tend to be stagnant while private ones are not, and that is true. Private protocols can iterate faster, have a vest
by Barrin92 5y ago
The general argument is that open protocols tend to be stagnant while private ones are not, and that is true.
Private protocols can iterate faster, have a vested financial interest to not lose customers, are often not required to be as backwards compatible which further slows updates and they can tightly integrate from backend to user. Open protocols always tend to be disjointed, i.e Email + PGP whereas something like Signal is just integrated because it's all under control of a single entity.
In reality, and this is evidenced by user choice, that level of integration is important. It's why 99.9% of users are on Twitter, and not on Mastodon.
- yellowapple 5y ago> have a vested financial interest to not lose customers This is just as satisfiable - if not more so - with slick marketing and platitudes than with actual security.
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoIt sounds like it is amazing we are all still using the IP stack to communicate.
- dane-pgp 5y ago> Private protocols can iterate faster, ... like Signal is just integrated because it's all under control of a single entity. The speed of iteration is of little comfort when what they are iterating is against the wishes of the users who are captive to their network effects.[0] > It's why 99.9% of users are on Twitter, and not on Mastodon. I dare say that Twitter also generates 1000 times more revenue than all Mastodon instances combined, so all that's proven here is that having more money lets you make a more addictive website. That's not necessarily something we should be celebrating, especially as users are paying with their privacy and the stability of their societies. [0] https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/signal.html https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/signal.html