3 ms·

I think this is largely a futile effort because the equilibrium the author thinks of when he talks about protocols does not exist. All existing internet platfo

I think this is largely a futile effort because the equilibrium the author thinks of when he talks about protocols does not exist. All existing internet platforms already sit on top of protocols, the internet's running on them. Anyone can built a platform on top of ActivityPub, on whatever crypto network or what have you. The old internet consisted of smaller islands not because of protocol technology, but because it had a small userbase overall and discovery was bad. The benefits of aggregation hadn't kicked in. If Mastodon gets to hundreds of millions of users I will bet that one or two instances will grow very large, develop their own rules, and what do you have then? A proprietary platform on top of what was once a 'first order' protocol. The protocol is still there but doesn't matter for end users, same way HTML doesn't to your average Facebook user or the blockchain doesn't matter to your average guy on coinbase. People need to recognize that anything that increases connectivity between people tends towards agglomeration. Tech is inherently centralizing, even ironically enough the superficially decentralizing tools, if they lower the cost of communication. This isn't just the history of internet companies, it's the history of movement of peoples from fractured townships to large urban centers. It's not malicious platform lock-in, but simply gravity.

vannevar 4y ago
Yes, and I don't think the author fully grasps the role of capital: you can create all the egalitarian protocols you want, but if there are massive wealth inequalities, capital will ultimately capture whatever communication channels are built on top of them.
- ngcc_hk 4y ago
  But not all, unlike communism. That is where you can still have phoenix. Whilst rich man eating Twitter, people can revolt. Given option out is key, not what is in.
veltas 4y ago
This is very true and I think it applies to everything, not just software. I was an anarchist at heart until I understood that if you just remove all the rules they all just come back with different names, and often in an inferior form.
- eddd-ddde 4y ago
  So maybe we need the opposite, a completely authoritarian and centralized way of handling internet services. Imagine if there was a single mail service, provider and client, handling all possible uses cases, a single web browser, etc. Its like the complete opposite end, instead of using a standard protocol to implement your use case, simply improve on _the_ service. [Edit]: Oh, and by 'centralized' I don't mean BigCo is in charge of it and manage the servers for it. What I mean is Public Organization 'owns' the service, but this service could very well be self-hosted by users, decentralized, etc. It's just that it is 'forbidden' that any other organization works or develops a similar service.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    IIRC that was how the UK phone network used to be. Also the USA, if I remember correctly that acoustic couplers predated plug-in modems because users were forbidden from connecting anything other than a phone to the phone network.
dane-pgp 4y ago
> If Mastodon gets to hundreds of millions of users I will bet that one or two instances will grow very large, develop their own rules, and what do you have then? Are you saying that these large instances would refuse to interoperate with each other? There are already signs of that happening even among small instances, but people are able to move their accounts from instances that are blocked by (or block) too many of their friend's instances, onto instances that have moderation policies they are more comfortable with. Better yet, because all account actions are covered by an open API, it would be possible to create an account on a service that lets you make posts on multiple sub-accounts on different instances, and aggregate messages from your friends across them, which should heal any fracturing of the network for people who really have friends who (are in communities which) hate each other.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  The mastodon community of today is very different from what it would be if it had hundreds of millions of users. Once the plaform grows enough to critical mass, the costs of switching off that platform become high enough that it can close itself off without mass exodus. The only way I see to end up with anything like what the author lays out is to mandate interoperability for platforms (possibly over a certain size). Unfortunately I have zero faith that our legistlators can craft and pass a bill that does that without bastardizing it to the point that is simply creates moats for the incumbent tech giants. I'd love to be surprised.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    Mastodon is not built for a single community comprising "hundreds of millions of users". Individual users and communities will interact on a far smaller scale, much as they might with email.
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      While gmail never reached critical mass and completely closed off, it's anti spam efforts (among those of others) have made running a small mail server fairly impractical. Ending up like email would probably be the best case result for mastodon. It is interesting to think about what stuctural aspects of email prevented hotmail or gmail from reaching critical mass and being able to fully close off interoperability.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
> It's not malicious platform lock-in, but simply gravity. One effect doesn't rule out the other. Platforms are definitely working towards locking customers in. The whole focus on engagement for example, prioritising time spent on a platform (and by extension the ad revenue) over the qualify of that time.. Users don't even venture out of their bubbles anymore because they don't know how. This isn't all natural discovery and network effects.
- contingencies 4y ago
  Users don't even venture out of their bubbles anymore because they don't know how. Added to https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup

vannevar 4y ago

Yes, and I don't think the author fully grasps the role of capital: you can create all the egalitarian protocols you want, but if there are massive wealth inequalities, capital will ultimately capture whatever communication channels are built on top of them.

ngcc_hk 4y ago
But not all, unlike communism. That is where you can still have phoenix. Whilst rich man eating Twitter, people can revolt. Given option out is key, not what is in.

veltas 4y ago

This is very true and I think it applies to everything, not just software. I was an anarchist at heart until I understood that if you just remove all the rules they all just come back with different names, and often in an inferior form.

eddd-ddde 4y ago
So maybe we need the opposite, a completely authoritarian and centralized way of handling internet services. Imagine if there was a single mail service, provider and client, handling all possible uses cases, a single web browser, etc. Its like the complete opposite end, instead of using a standard protocol to implement your use case, simply improve on _the_ service. [Edit]: Oh, and by 'centralized' I don't mean BigCo is in charge of it and manage the servers for it. What I mean is Public Organization 'owns' the service, but this service could very well be self-hosted by users, decentralized, etc. It's just that it is 'forbidden' that any other organization works or develops a similar service.
- ben_w 4y ago
  IIRC that was how the UK phone network used to be. Also the USA, if I remember correctly that acoustic couplers predated plug-in modems because users were forbidden from connecting anything other than a phone to the phone network.

dane-pgp 4y ago

> If Mastodon gets to hundreds of millions of users I will bet that one or two instances will grow very large, develop their own rules, and what do you have then? Are you saying that these large instances would refuse to interoperate with each other? There are already signs of that happening even among small instances, but people are able to move their accounts from instances that are blocked by (or block) too many of their friend's instances, onto instances that have moderation policies they are more comfortable with. Better yet, because all account actions are covered by an open API, it would be possible to create an account on a service that lets you make posts on multiple sub-accounts on different instances, and aggregate messages from your friends across them, which should heal any fracturing of the network for people who really have friends who (are in communities which) hate each other.

shkkmo 4y ago
The mastodon community of today is very different from what it would be if it had hundreds of millions of users. Once the plaform grows enough to critical mass, the costs of switching off that platform become high enough that it can close itself off without mass exodus. The only way I see to end up with anything like what the author lays out is to mandate interoperability for platforms (possibly over a certain size). Unfortunately I have zero faith that our legistlators can craft and pass a bill that does that without bastardizing it to the point that is simply creates moats for the incumbent tech giants. I'd love to be surprised.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  Mastodon is not built for a single community comprising "hundreds of millions of users". Individual users and communities will interact on a far smaller scale, much as they might with email.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    While gmail never reached critical mass and completely closed off, it's anti spam efforts (among those of others) have made running a small mail server fairly impractical. Ending up like email would probably be the best case result for mastodon. It is interesting to think about what stuctural aspects of email prevented hotmail or gmail from reaching critical mass and being able to fully close off interoperability.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

> It's not malicious platform lock-in, but simply gravity. One effect doesn't rule out the other. Platforms are definitely working towards locking customers in. The whole focus on engagement for example, prioritising time spent on a platform (and by extension the ad revenue) over the qualify of that time.. Users don't even venture out of their bubbles anymore because they don't know how. This isn't all natural discovery and network effects.

contingencies 4y ago
Users don't even venture out of their bubbles anymore because they don't know how. Added to https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup