4 ms·

Given Mastodon is an open source, federated platform built atop an open protocol, I'm not sure how that'd even be possible. I can understand the tendency towar

Given Mastodon is an open source, federated platform built atop an open protocol, I'm not sure how that'd even be possible. I can understand the tendency towards cynicism, but in this case it's probably misplaced.

krapp 4y ago
All it takes is for a single well-funded corporate player to offer up a centralized version of "Mastodon" that, oh let's say, just happens to automatically work with all of your Google or Facebook/Meta services, and capture all of the network effects and mindshare. It won't matter what anyone else does with the code or protocol after that, any more than attempts to compete against Google, Twitter or any of the browser makers matter now. The big players will simply take what they want and make it theirs, or else destroy it at their leisure, the way they did with the web, javascript and any number of ostensibly free and open platforms and protocols.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  Eh, I dunno. Back when that particular phrase was coined, everyone was afraid Microsoft was gonna somehow destroy Linux, and yet that never happened, either. Open platforms and protocols are incredibly powerful and resistance to balkanization. Heck, I find it really ironic you mention "the web, javascript and any number of ostensibly free and open platforms and protocols" as examples of things that companies supposedly made theirs or destroyed, given the web itself is more open and standardized than it every was. If anything, Microsoft's failure to push proprietary solutions/extensions into the web (HTML extensions, JScript, ActiveX, Silverlight, etc) is a great example of how resilient the web truly is. Yes, they're used as a substrate for building walled garden services, but how do you interact with those services? Using open protocols implemented by interoperable clients and servers.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    Have you tried running your own mail server and not having Microsoft or Google mishandle your email (an open protocol)?
    - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
      I've not. I know plenty of people who do, and do so successfully. Regardless, I'm not sure what your point is. Email is still very much an open ecosystem with plenty of interoperability and competition. I myself use a custom domain with a hosted email service that isn't being run by Google or Microsoft (I opted for mailbox.org). The spam problem means that it can be tough to ensure your server is being treated as a member in good standing--you need to implement things like SPF/DKIM, you need to ensure you don't land on any blackhole lists, etc--but so long as you do those things, you system will absolutely interoperate with any others.
      - wrycoder 4y ago
        Well, I've been running my own mail servers for years, and I can tell you that getting Google and MS to handle your mail fairly is very challenging. There is more involved than what you mention, and many posts here on HN have discussed that. There may be open standards, but Google and MS only want to interoperate with other big players. They don't want to bother with small fry.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I really wish people would try to disprove your assertion rather than outright downvote. In a practical sense, centralization of mastodon is kinda already happening in the form of 'like-minded verses' that have to comply with specific code of conduct. It is not nearly as far fetched as some would like it to believe it to be.
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    That isn't centralization. That's the essence of federation. It's literally how Mastodon is intended to work. And the whole point is that if you don't agree with how an instance is being run or moderated, you can migrate to a different instance or stand up your own. Now, it is notable that a lot of the fediverse is concentrated in certain large instances (e.g. mastodon.social). Bu that kind of concentration is not itself an evil so long as people have the freedom to move around. Closed off, walled gardens are the problem.
    - saurik 4y ago
      I want to agree with you, but then I hear about the concept of "defederating" and how small instances are subject to a ton of scrutiny and might even be blocked by some large instances by default, and I see this as a concentration of power--akin to "Google and Microsoft get to decide who can send e-mail and you are an idiot to run your own mail server"--more than as a mere happenstance of decentralized systems being (of course) made up of centralized endpoints.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
        First, I've never heard of "small instances [being] subject to a ton of scrutiny [or being] blocked by some large instances by default", so I'm not sure where that's coming from. Regardless, which is better: A federation where, yeah, there might be a bit of drama over who blocks whom, but each instance can set its own policy? Or a single private entity controlling the entire platform? You cannot solve the problem you're highlighting with technology. What you're describing is the human consequences of people exercising their freedom of association. But what you can do is place that freedom in the hands of the community, and I struggle to see how that is anything but a definite improvement over the current status quo.

krapp 4y ago

All it takes is for a single well-funded corporate player to offer up a centralized version of "Mastodon" that, oh let's say, just happens to automatically work with all of your Google or Facebook/Meta services, and capture all of the network effects and mindshare. It won't matter what anyone else does with the code or protocol after that, any more than attempts to compete against Google, Twitter or any of the browser makers matter now. The big players will simply take what they want and make it theirs, or else destroy it at their leisure, the way they did with the web, javascript and any number of ostensibly free and open platforms and protocols.

BaseballPhysics 4y ago
Eh, I dunno. Back when that particular phrase was coined, everyone was afraid Microsoft was gonna somehow destroy Linux, and yet that never happened, either. Open platforms and protocols are incredibly powerful and resistance to balkanization. Heck, I find it really ironic you mention "the web, javascript and any number of ostensibly free and open platforms and protocols" as examples of things that companies supposedly made theirs or destroyed, given the web itself is more open and standardized than it every was. If anything, Microsoft's failure to push proprietary solutions/extensions into the web (HTML extensions, JScript, ActiveX, Silverlight, etc) is a great example of how resilient the web truly is. Yes, they're used as a substrate for building walled garden services, but how do you interact with those services? Using open protocols implemented by interoperable clients and servers.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  Have you tried running your own mail server and not having Microsoft or Google mishandle your email (an open protocol)?
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    I've not. I know plenty of people who do, and do so successfully. Regardless, I'm not sure what your point is. Email is still very much an open ecosystem with plenty of interoperability and competition. I myself use a custom domain with a hosted email service that isn't being run by Google or Microsoft (I opted for mailbox.org). The spam problem means that it can be tough to ensure your server is being treated as a member in good standing--you need to implement things like SPF/DKIM, you need to ensure you don't land on any blackhole lists, etc--but so long as you do those things, you system will absolutely interoperate with any others.
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      Well, I've been running my own mail servers for years, and I can tell you that getting Google and MS to handle your mail fairly is very challenging. There is more involved than what you mention, and many posts here on HN have discussed that. There may be open standards, but Google and MS only want to interoperate with other big players. They don't want to bother with small fry.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
I really wish people would try to disprove your assertion rather than outright downvote. In a practical sense, centralization of mastodon is kinda already happening in the form of 'like-minded verses' that have to comply with specific code of conduct. It is not nearly as far fetched as some would like it to believe it to be.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  That isn't centralization. That's the essence of federation. It's literally how Mastodon is intended to work. And the whole point is that if you don't agree with how an instance is being run or moderated, you can migrate to a different instance or stand up your own. Now, it is notable that a lot of the fediverse is concentrated in certain large instances (e.g. mastodon.social). Bu that kind of concentration is not itself an evil so long as people have the freedom to move around. Closed off, walled gardens are the problem.
  - saurik 4y ago
    I want to agree with you, but then I hear about the concept of "defederating" and how small instances are subject to a ton of scrutiny and might even be blocked by some large instances by default, and I see this as a concentration of power--akin to "Google and Microsoft get to decide who can send e-mail and you are an idiot to run your own mail server"--more than as a mere happenstance of decentralized systems being (of course) made up of centralized endpoints.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
      First, I've never heard of "small instances [being] subject to a ton of scrutiny [or being] blocked by some large instances by default", so I'm not sure where that's coming from. Regardless, which is better: A federation where, yeah, there might be a bit of drama over who blocks whom, but each instance can set its own policy? Or a single private entity controlling the entire platform? You cannot solve the problem you're highlighting with technology. What you're describing is the human consequences of people exercising their freedom of association. But what you can do is place that freedom in the hands of the community, and I struggle to see how that is anything but a definite improvement over the current status quo.