4 ms·

> given that it is built on network effects. Network effects can happen in a federated or decentralized way: - Email is useful regardless of the software, OS,

> given that it is built on network effects. Network effects can happen in a federated or decentralized way: - Email is useful regardless of the software, OS, server or owner of the address you are sending emails to. - The fediverse benefits from network effects and interoperability between instances with both different software and different communities. I would even go further and argue that centralized "network effects" are in reality "captive costs" of "not being inside the walled garden" rather than a true network to begin with.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Look at the effects of email and "the fediverse" versus these giant social media platforms. Which is greater?
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  Well, a lot of organizations use email for internal and external operations processes and I would be very skeptical about sending contracts or legal documents via facebook messenger. Through the magic of interoperability entities can set up their own servers or contract to external providers their email services.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Fair point, but it has nothing to do with the context of the article. I was referring to the ability to influence societal and individual viewpoints. I don't think email comes anywhere near that.
unclebucknasty 5y ago
>Network effects can happen in a federated or decentralized way There's no technical reason they can't, but practically, a central, easily discernible destination appeals to those looking to monetize their content. Email is a one-to-one (or few) channel vs broadcast. Completely different. The arguments about decentralization/federation remind me of the early days of the Net, wherein there was so much talk of democratization, but here we are (unfortunately).
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  > There's no technical reason they can't, but practically, a central, easily discernible destination appeals to those looking to monetize their content. That is very similar to what was mentioned up-thread: > [..] we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration: Centralization is required to capture profit. --- > Email is a one-to-one (or few) channel vs broadcast. Completely different. ActivityPub / Diaspora / Friendica were also mentioned; email was about interop between software and service providers. --- > The arguments about decentralization/federation remind me of the early days of the Net, wherein there was so much talk of democratization, but here we are (unfortunately). Also mentioned up-thread: > The idea of disintermediation was central to the emancipatory visions of the Internet, yet the landscape today is more mediated than ever before.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >ActivityPub / Diaspora / Friendica were also mentioned Yes, these are all examples of what's technically possible from a decentralization standpoint; yet have not flourished WRT adoption, relative to the centralized platforms. >That is very similar to what was mentioned up-thread: "[..] we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration: Centralization is required to capture profit. I see the article you've quoted up-thread and the author's observation is so obvious as to add little to this discussion. That is, of course it's an issue of profit. But, I suppose it does underscore that it's not the question of technology that advocates of Diaspora, etc. suggest. So, sure, my original point that we'll always tend towards centralization on platforms that benefit from network effects relies on the assumption that we'll continue to have a capitalist economy.

actually_a_dog 5y ago

Look at the effects of email and "the fediverse" versus these giant social media platforms. Which is greater?

fabianhjr 5y ago
Well, a lot of organizations use email for internal and external operations processes and I would be very skeptical about sending contracts or legal documents via facebook messenger. Through the magic of interoperability entities can set up their own servers or contract to external providers their email services.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Fair point, but it has nothing to do with the context of the article. I was referring to the ability to influence societal and individual viewpoints. I don't think email comes anywhere near that.

unclebucknasty 5y ago

>Network effects can happen in a federated or decentralized way There's no technical reason they can't, but practically, a central, easily discernible destination appeals to those looking to monetize their content. Email is a one-to-one (or few) channel vs broadcast. Completely different. The arguments about decentralization/federation remind me of the early days of the Net, wherein there was so much talk of democratization, but here we are (unfortunately).

fabianhjr 5y ago
> There's no technical reason they can't, but practically, a central, easily discernible destination appeals to those looking to monetize their content. That is very similar to what was mentioned up-thread: > [..] we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration: Centralization is required to capture profit. --- > Email is a one-to-one (or few) channel vs broadcast. Completely different. ActivityPub / Diaspora / Friendica were also mentioned; email was about interop between software and service providers. --- > The arguments about decentralization/federation remind me of the early days of the Net, wherein there was so much talk of democratization, but here we are (unfortunately). Also mentioned up-thread: > The idea of disintermediation was central to the emancipatory visions of the Internet, yet the landscape today is more mediated than ever before.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >ActivityPub / Diaspora / Friendica were also mentioned Yes, these are all examples of what's technically possible from a decentralization standpoint; yet have not flourished WRT adoption, relative to the centralized platforms. >That is very similar to what was mentioned up-thread: "[..] we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration: Centralization is required to capture profit. I see the article you've quoted up-thread and the author's observation is so obvious as to add little to this discussion. That is, of course it's an issue of profit. But, I suppose it does underscore that it's not the question of technology that advocates of Diaspora, etc. suggest. So, sure, my original point that we'll always tend towards centralization on platforms that benefit from network effects relies on the assumption that we'll continue to have a capitalist economy.