7 ms·

I strongly believe platforms should be forced to allow interoperability and it should be illegal to prevent or frustrate access from other clients or services.

I strongly believe platforms should be forced to allow interoperability and it should be illegal to prevent or frustrate access from other clients or services. The idea that someone hosting a product on the internet should be able to control how I access my data or services is utter nonsense and it’s amazing that we’ve allowed it to become the norm. This should include interoperability that allows “unbundling” such as using a site/app’s messaging feature alone with a different client or service and replacing the platform’s feed curation algorithms with your own or third party algos. If they can’t make money under these conditions, tough. They either need to start charging for the core product instead of extracting value in hidden ways, improve their own money making services so people don’t go elsewhere, or die.

Proven 5y ago
> I strongly believe platforms should be forced to allow interoperability That is ludicrous. What gives you the right to decide how people run their business and what services should or shouldn't be available to their consenting customers? > The idea that someone hosting a productt on the internet should be able to control how I access my data or services is utter nonsense and it’s amazing that we’ve allowed it to become the norm. Your data is yours before you share it. If you don't want to share it, don't use such services, or use services which provide contractual guarantees that address your concerns.
dageshi 5y ago
The lesson of the internet is that lower friction always wins. If people had charged for everything on the internet from its inception, it would have died. I'd rather have good than perfect, I think the internet is pretty good at the moment.
- pharke 5y ago
  I see it more as capture of unwitting content producers. It's the same faustian deal made by medieval landlords to their serfs. The social media companies own the real estate and tools for improving it and allow their users to live and work there for free so long as they sign over everything they produce to their lords.
  - dageshi 5y ago
    That's not even remotely true. If you're sufficiently big enough on social media you can get your own advertising deals directly with advertisers and cut out the platform itself. If you're small enough that you can't do that then your content isn't worth much anyway on an individual basis.
    - hobs 5y ago
      So... exactly what they said in the parent post? You have no choice and no value unless the landlords bestow it upon you.
      - dageshi 5y ago
        Will anyone pay me for this comment? I'm guessing not. Will anyone pay for yours? Also probably not. Because in both cases they take minutes or less to write. 99.999% of most content on most social media is equivalent to this, what is it worth? The internets "landlords" didn't decide these comments have no monetary value, we did.
        hobs 5y ago
        It's worth everything - without these small dribs and drabs there's no social media at all.
        dageshi 5y ago
        No, viewing the posts of the person with 50k+ followers is worth something, the dribs and drabs are just the cost of business.
        AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        If you took a social network and split it into one network with everyone who has more than 50k followers and one network with everyone who has less than that, everyone would use the second one, because it would be the one with all their friends and family on it. And then all the pop stars would move to that one because they're inherently the ones chasing the users, whereas dad doesn't want to install another app on his phone which means mom can't stop using that one and neither can you.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  The internet wouldn't have died, because there always were and always will be actors without a profit motive.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > I think the internet is pretty good at the moment Yeah, with uBlock Origin installed it's actually bearable.
  - qsort 5y ago
    Yeah, some corners of the Web are bearable, assuming uBlock origin or equivalent is installed. Most mainstream stuff is frankly braindead, uBO or not. Still much better than, as Pink Floyd would put it, "thirteen channels of shit on the TV to choose from".
WallyFunk 5y ago
> If they can’t make money under these conditions, tough. They either need to start charging for the core product instead of extracting value in hidden ways, improve their own money making services so people don’t go elsewhere, or die Agreed. It is possible to have FOSS software that is not gratis. Ever heard of a business model called: 'Making something of value and charging for it'?
- Taek 5y ago
  You can't call your license FOSS if the code isn't entirely gratis to run and distribute. It's the first requirement defined by the OSI. It's also the only requirement that I disagree with
  - fsckboy 5y ago
    > You can't call your license FOSS if the code isn't entirely gratis to run and distribute. you're introducing some confusion here: first, OSI doesn't define FOSS, just their subset of OSS; and someone can offer to sell you, and you can buy and then resell, FOSS code (both Free (GPL according to FSF et al) and Open Source (BSD, MIT, according to OSI et al)); you are simply not required to pay extra ex post for reselling. from OSI webpage https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd "1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
    - clcaev 5y ago
      This is a distinction without a difference.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        There is actually a difference. The person who wants a change can pay you, or anyone else, to implement it. Then everyone gets it, but you still get paid for it. Which is actually a sustainable business model. One corporation pays you $5000 for change A, another pays you $3500 for change B, an individual pays you $100 for small change C, you make $8600 this month and the whole world gets A, B and C. In theory you might now have corporation A waiting for someone else to pay for the change instead of paying for it themselves, but if the change to them is worth $10,000/month and waiting for somebody else to do it causes them to have to wait five years, how does the math work out for them on that?
rwbhn 5y ago
> need to start charging for the core product I think you've misunderstood what their core product is. They charge good money to their customers - companies placing ads.
- imglorp 5y ago
  Seems like there's roughly four revenue streams. Some companies dip into all of them! * Sell you a physical product * Sell you a service * Sell information about you: your conversations, your clicks, your friends, etc * Sell you ads Smart TV's are an example of all four at once.
  - Torwald 5y ago
    What about digital products? I guess you left that out for a reason, what would that be?
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      A variant of #1 or, usually, #2: most of the time when you "buy" a digital good, you're really renting it out under extremely limiting terms.
      - Torwald 5y ago
        I got your point, it's valid, specially membership sites. But some stuff is different. Ebooks, audio files.
        spijdar 5y ago
        It's still correct regarding ebooks and audio files, you're not paying for the files but the rights to keep a copy of the file and use it personally. If the files are not protected by DRM, then there's no technical limitation on copying or redistributing the file, but according to your license agreement you're not permitted to do so. In practice, no one is probably going to come after you for copying your music files or ebooks across your devices or sharing it with friends, but you don't own the file. Try mass distributing it or reselling it long enough and you'll attract someone's attention.
toss1 5y ago
Yup, mandatory interoperability, transfer of data in and out, and required all directions are the same difficulty (and the same for transactions - no single-click signup and 3hrs on hold in five tel calls to unsubscribe)
zepto 5y ago
> The idea that someone hosting a product on the internet should be able to control how I access my data or services is utter nonsense and it’s amazing that we’ve allowed it to become the norm. Nobody can control your data unless you give it to them. What do you want to do that doesn’t have an open alternative?
zepto 5y ago
> I strongly believe platforms should be forced to allow interoperability At what level of API with what level of SLA? > and it should be illegal to prevent or frustrate access from other clients or services. Many existing APIs that are intended to allow access are extremely frustrating and poorly designed and implemented. Obviously this is true for products and services as well. It seems very hard to imagine how you could mandate good quality design and implementation of APIs.
- amelius 5y ago
  > At what level of API with what level of SLA? Could be dependent on the size of the company/userbase. E.g. Facebook (>100M users) should implement full API, while a small company inventing new social software (<100k users) should only implement minimum API.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  You're making this too complicated. All that's required is that breaking changes to the API the vendor's first party client uses to access the service be documented and announced e.g. two years in advance. It doesn't matter how poor the vendor's documentation is. It doesn't even need to exist. As long as the first party client can be reverse engineered and the fruits of that work don't get wiped out every month by purposeful undocumented adversarial modifications. And then a vendor has a simple way to avoid running afoul of the rule -- keep a stable API. You can still change it, if you have to, but then the documentation of the change has to satisfy the lawyers, and more importantly you only get to do it once every two years, because you have to provide that much advance notice. And it doesn't apply to adding new features, only breaking existing ones.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > You're making this too complicated. You’re pretending this is simpler than it is. > you only get to do it once every two years, because you have to provide that much advance notice. > And it doesn't apply to adding new features, only breaking existing ones. What about changing existing features, or removing them? Can that only be done every two years?
judge2020 5y ago
Wouldn't this be a direct antithesis to any expectation of privacy or data security people have of their social media hosts? If I run an instance called mycoolfacebook.example and get thousands of people to sign up, what's stopping me from just passively saving all 'friends only' posts that pour in from people with friends @facebook.com? Do we need e2ee mastodon now, or do we just hope laws take into account malicious observations?
- williamtrask 5y ago
  Great point. It’s a solvable problem, at least using code audits (since it’s client side)
- fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
  I think that expectation of privacy is mostly misplaced and the hosting providers are the least part of the concern: anyone who’s “friends” with more than a handful of people on social media should be treating all the posts on that platform as potentially public: there’s no way to prevent one of your connections from screenshotting and/or otherwise broadcasting your “private” posts. In this way, the older unauthenticated model of the internet was better: by not creating an illusion of privacy around your website (think c2.com or Wikipedia), it does not encourage you to rely on that illusion for safety.
- Kinrany 5y ago
  This doesn't seem like a new problem. If mycoolfacebook.example is a new frontend for Facebook, it must only talk to Facebook's backend, this is reasonably easy to verify. If it has its own backend, we'll have the same concerns we already have about Facebook.
- 3np 5y ago
  This is a solvable problem. I think something along the lines of SSB is needed to square the triangle. More progress needs to be made on the notifications and efficiency stories. Maybe there is regulation that would put pressure in that direction. I do think that making data into enough of a liability (as opposed to profitable) will eventually break apart data silos.
_Algernon_ 5y ago
What happens if platform A wants to interoperate with platform B and requires information from person C's account about person D (because they are friends)? Person D has likely not accepted any kind of privacy policy of platform A or consented to the exchange of data about them. This would very quickly turn into a massive GDPR headache.
- barnabee 5y ago
  If data is required to perform a service you've requested (lawful basis = 'contract') then further consent is not needed under GDPR. If by "requires information about" you mean "wishes to track/advertise to" then yes, that sounds like a headache. This is by design, and welcome.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
alexashka 5y ago
100% on interoperability. It's not amazing that it's become the norm because, it's always been the norm that people control other people in ways that seem barbaric and counter-productive in hindsight. There are a few creative spirits who think through what would be best for as many, as long as possible. Then there's everyone else that wants to play whatever the game already is and win. You just can't explain to people who care only care about winning that logic, decency, solidarity, are fundamental pillars everything else they enjoy relies upon. They want what they want, their world is simple and cruel, like the animal kingdom.
- rektide 5y ago
  i dont look at the boon of interoperability as being that of the creative few. i view interoperability as leaving the on ramp open to anyone, of permissionlessness that lets everyone have a chance to respin, remake, reconsider, ongoingly. we dont just think through really good solutions... we adapt & coadapt & readapt. discovery is continual & progressive & inclusive & shifting. the social arguments dont seem necessary.
- barnabee 5y ago
  Sadly I agree. Business is about optimising for local maxima — making yourself money, whether or not it makes us all poorer. Profit and wealth are important motivators, but democratic society should balance this by looking after the global optimisation problem, even when that sometimes constrains individual or corporate profit seeking. Interoperability, right to repair, etc. are exactly the kinds of globally beneficial, [possibly] locally detrimental balance we should be pushing for.
dmos62 5y ago
Thanks for saying that. I strongly agree.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Proven 5y ago

> I strongly believe platforms should be forced to allow interoperability That is ludicrous. What gives you the right to decide how people run their business and what services should or shouldn't be available to their consenting customers? > The idea that someone hosting a productt on the internet should be able to control how I access my data or services is utter nonsense and it’s amazing that we’ve allowed it to become the norm. Your data is yours before you share it. If you don't want to share it, don't use such services, or use services which provide contractual guarantees that address your concerns.

dageshi 5y ago

The lesson of the internet is that lower friction always wins. If people had charged for everything on the internet from its inception, it would have died. I'd rather have good than perfect, I think the internet is pretty good at the moment.

pharke 5y ago
I see it more as capture of unwitting content producers. It's the same faustian deal made by medieval landlords to their serfs. The social media companies own the real estate and tools for improving it and allow their users to live and work there for free so long as they sign over everything they produce to their lords.
- dageshi 5y ago
  That's not even remotely true. If you're sufficiently big enough on social media you can get your own advertising deals directly with advertisers and cut out the platform itself. If you're small enough that you can't do that then your content isn't worth much anyway on an individual basis.
  - hobs 5y ago
    So... exactly what they said in the parent post? You have no choice and no value unless the landlords bestow it upon you.
    - dageshi 5y ago
      Will anyone pay me for this comment? I'm guessing not. Will anyone pay for yours? Also probably not. Because in both cases they take minutes or less to write. 99.999% of most content on most social media is equivalent to this, what is it worth? The internets "landlords" didn't decide these comments have no monetary value, we did.
      - hobs 5y ago
        It's worth everything - without these small dribs and drabs there's no social media at all.
        dageshi 5y ago
        No, viewing the posts of the person with 50k+ followers is worth something, the dribs and drabs are just the cost of business.
        AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        If you took a social network and split it into one network with everyone who has more than 50k followers and one network with everyone who has less than that, everyone would use the second one, because it would be the one with all their friends and family on it. And then all the pop stars would move to that one because they're inherently the ones chasing the users, whereas dad doesn't want to install another app on his phone which means mom can't stop using that one and neither can you.
foxfluff 5y ago
The internet wouldn't have died, because there always were and always will be actors without a profit motive.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> I think the internet is pretty good at the moment Yeah, with uBlock Origin installed it's actually bearable.
- qsort 5y ago
  Yeah, some corners of the Web are bearable, assuming uBlock origin or equivalent is installed. Most mainstream stuff is frankly braindead, uBO or not. Still much better than, as Pink Floyd would put it, "thirteen channels of shit on the TV to choose from".

WallyFunk 5y ago

> If they can’t make money under these conditions, tough. They either need to start charging for the core product instead of extracting value in hidden ways, improve their own money making services so people don’t go elsewhere, or die Agreed. It is possible to have FOSS software that is not gratis. Ever heard of a business model called: 'Making something of value and charging for it'?

Taek 5y ago
You can't call your license FOSS if the code isn't entirely gratis to run and distribute. It's the first requirement defined by the OSI. It's also the only requirement that I disagree with
- fsckboy 5y ago
  > You can't call your license FOSS if the code isn't entirely gratis to run and distribute. you're introducing some confusion here: first, OSI doesn't define FOSS, just their subset of OSS; and someone can offer to sell you, and you can buy and then resell, FOSS code (both Free (GPL according to FSF et al) and Open Source (BSD, MIT, according to OSI et al)); you are simply not required to pay extra ex post for reselling. from OSI webpage https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd "1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
  - clcaev 5y ago
    This is a distinction without a difference.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      There is actually a difference. The person who wants a change can pay you, or anyone else, to implement it. Then everyone gets it, but you still get paid for it. Which is actually a sustainable business model. One corporation pays you $5000 for change A, another pays you $3500 for change B, an individual pays you $100 for small change C, you make $8600 this month and the whole world gets A, B and C. In theory you might now have corporation A waiting for someone else to pay for the change instead of paying for it themselves, but if the change to them is worth $10,000/month and waiting for somebody else to do it causes them to have to wait five years, how does the math work out for them on that?

rwbhn 5y ago

> need to start charging for the core product I think you've misunderstood what their core product is. They charge good money to their customers - companies placing ads.

imglorp 5y ago
Seems like there's roughly four revenue streams. Some companies dip into all of them! * Sell you a physical product * Sell you a service * Sell information about you: your conversations, your clicks, your friends, etc * Sell you ads Smart TV's are an example of all four at once.
- Torwald 5y ago
  What about digital products? I guess you left that out for a reason, what would that be?
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    A variant of #1 or, usually, #2: most of the time when you "buy" a digital good, you're really renting it out under extremely limiting terms.
    - Torwald 5y ago
      I got your point, it's valid, specially membership sites. But some stuff is different. Ebooks, audio files.
      - spijdar 5y ago
        It's still correct regarding ebooks and audio files, you're not paying for the files but the rights to keep a copy of the file and use it personally. If the files are not protected by DRM, then there's no technical limitation on copying or redistributing the file, but according to your license agreement you're not permitted to do so. In practice, no one is probably going to come after you for copying your music files or ebooks across your devices or sharing it with friends, but you don't own the file. Try mass distributing it or reselling it long enough and you'll attract someone's attention.

toss1 5y ago

Yup, mandatory interoperability, transfer of data in and out, and required all directions are the same difficulty (and the same for transactions - no single-click signup and 3hrs on hold in five tel calls to unsubscribe)

zepto 5y ago

> The idea that someone hosting a product on the internet should be able to control how I access my data or services is utter nonsense and it’s amazing that we’ve allowed it to become the norm. Nobody can control your data unless you give it to them. What do you want to do that doesn’t have an open alternative?

zepto 5y ago

> I strongly believe platforms should be forced to allow interoperability At what level of API with what level of SLA? > and it should be illegal to prevent or frustrate access from other clients or services. Many existing APIs that are intended to allow access are extremely frustrating and poorly designed and implemented. Obviously this is true for products and services as well. It seems very hard to imagine how you could mandate good quality design and implementation of APIs.

amelius 5y ago
> At what level of API with what level of SLA? Could be dependent on the size of the company/userbase. E.g. Facebook (>100M users) should implement full API, while a small company inventing new social software (<100k users) should only implement minimum API.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
You're making this too complicated. All that's required is that breaking changes to the API the vendor's first party client uses to access the service be documented and announced e.g. two years in advance. It doesn't matter how poor the vendor's documentation is. It doesn't even need to exist. As long as the first party client can be reverse engineered and the fruits of that work don't get wiped out every month by purposeful undocumented adversarial modifications. And then a vendor has a simple way to avoid running afoul of the rule -- keep a stable API. You can still change it, if you have to, but then the documentation of the change has to satisfy the lawyers, and more importantly you only get to do it once every two years, because you have to provide that much advance notice. And it doesn't apply to adding new features, only breaking existing ones.
- zepto 5y ago
  > You're making this too complicated. You’re pretending this is simpler than it is. > you only get to do it once every two years, because you have to provide that much advance notice. > And it doesn't apply to adding new features, only breaking existing ones. What about changing existing features, or removing them? Can that only be done every two years?

judge2020 5y ago

Wouldn't this be a direct antithesis to any expectation of privacy or data security people have of their social media hosts? If I run an instance called mycoolfacebook.example and get thousands of people to sign up, what's stopping me from just passively saving all 'friends only' posts that pour in from people with friends @facebook.com? Do we need e2ee mastodon now, or do we just hope laws take into account malicious observations?

williamtrask 5y ago
Great point. It’s a solvable problem, at least using code audits (since it’s client side)
fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
I think that expectation of privacy is mostly misplaced and the hosting providers are the least part of the concern: anyone who’s “friends” with more than a handful of people on social media should be treating all the posts on that platform as potentially public: there’s no way to prevent one of your connections from screenshotting and/or otherwise broadcasting your “private” posts. In this way, the older unauthenticated model of the internet was better: by not creating an illusion of privacy around your website (think c2.com or Wikipedia), it does not encourage you to rely on that illusion for safety.
Kinrany 5y ago
This doesn't seem like a new problem. If mycoolfacebook.example is a new frontend for Facebook, it must only talk to Facebook's backend, this is reasonably easy to verify. If it has its own backend, we'll have the same concerns we already have about Facebook.
3np 5y ago
This is a solvable problem. I think something along the lines of SSB is needed to square the triangle. More progress needs to be made on the notifications and efficiency stories. Maybe there is regulation that would put pressure in that direction. I do think that making data into enough of a liability (as opposed to profitable) will eventually break apart data silos.

_Algernon_ 5y ago

What happens if platform A wants to interoperate with platform B and requires information from person C's account about person D (because they are friends)? Person D has likely not accepted any kind of privacy policy of platform A or consented to the exchange of data about them. This would very quickly turn into a massive GDPR headache.

barnabee 5y ago
If data is required to perform a service you've requested (lawful basis = 'contract') then further consent is not needed under GDPR. If by "requires information about" you mean "wishes to track/advertise to" then yes, that sounds like a headache. This is by design, and welcome.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

alexashka 5y ago

100% on interoperability. It's not amazing that it's become the norm because, it's always been the norm that people control other people in ways that seem barbaric and counter-productive in hindsight. There are a few creative spirits who think through what would be best for as many, as long as possible. Then there's everyone else that wants to play whatever the game already is and win. You just can't explain to people who care only care about winning that logic, decency, solidarity, are fundamental pillars everything else they enjoy relies upon. They want what they want, their world is simple and cruel, like the animal kingdom.

rektide 5y ago
i dont look at the boon of interoperability as being that of the creative few. i view interoperability as leaving the on ramp open to anyone, of permissionlessness that lets everyone have a chance to respin, remake, reconsider, ongoingly. we dont just think through really good solutions... we adapt & coadapt & readapt. discovery is continual & progressive & inclusive & shifting. the social arguments dont seem necessary.
barnabee 5y ago
Sadly I agree. Business is about optimising for local maxima — making yourself money, whether or not it makes us all poorer. Profit and wealth are important motivators, but democratic society should balance this by looking after the global optimisation problem, even when that sometimes constrains individual or corporate profit seeking. Interoperability, right to repair, etc. are exactly the kinds of globally beneficial, [possibly] locally detrimental balance we should be pushing for.

dmos62 5y ago

Thanks for saying that. I strongly agree.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]