3 ms·

I am deeply concerned about the apathy people have towards the idea of ownership, openness and interoperability. It gives the idea that people just want to be f

by jrowen 1y ago

I am deeply concerned about the apathy people have towards the idea of ownership, openness and interoperability. It gives the idea that people just want to be fed TikTok and Instagram reels. Can you expand on this feeling? Why is it deeply concerning? Why should people care about the abstract concept of data ownership? People were totally fine when they had zero ownership or agency over media and they were fed TV, books, movies, radio, etc. Most people do just want that, their primary motivation to engage with media is just to be entertained in that moment. Now that they have places where they can publish stuff and their friends and family and maybe even some other people might see it, why should they care that they don't "own" their Instagram post, whatever that means?

dgaffney 1y ago
idk if the normal user should necessarily care about data ownership, but I think the incentive structure it creates would be immediately legible to most people
- jrowen 1y ago
  I'm not sure what that means, can you give examples of good and bad incentive structures in this context?
  - dgaffney 1y ago
    sure, https://x.com https://x.com
    - jrowen 1y ago
      So mysterious, so edgy. Hope you at least feel better, because you've utterly failed to communicate a coherent idea.
      - dgaffney 1y ago
        It’s pithy because the request is pithy- if I have to explain the mechanisms at work here i doubt you’re ever going to buy into the theory at all. A short version is what Dan already said - the entire economic foundation of social media is predicated on high exit costs. ATProto takes substantive steps to lower them. The theory in turn is that new businesses will need to develop less extractive models of viability to survive, which will in turn read legibly to users as less exploitative (you decide your feed, you can switch providers, you can choose moderation layers, etc)
        jrowen 1y ago
        the entire economic foundation of social media is predicated on high exit costs No I think it's predicated on creating a product that people like to use. That's the Step 1 that OSS zealots miss when they focus entirely on these niche lofty ideals. I highly doubt the average Instagram user is yearning for - or would even be enticed by - a version of that same experience that has a lower exit cost. That's the problem with these Twitter clones. "It's just like Twitter, but RESPECTS your data ownership" is not compelling. Just create a freaking compelling and original user experience (the actual hard part that made the big platforms successful) and secretly do whatever you want on the back end.
        steveklabnik 1y ago
        The reason I like Bluesky is that they understand this, and that's why the protocol stuff isn't front and center. They're focused on product first, technology second. The tech serves to create a good product, they don't build the tech first and then hope people find the product acceptable.
        dgaffney 1y ago
        lol, ok
        foltik 1y ago
        There’s nothing compelling and original about the twitter UX compared to all the clones. Pretty much across the board it’s just posting short messages and following others. The entire value of a social media platform is in the network. Accumulating and maintaining one is the actual hard part that made the big players successful.
      - foltik 1y ago
        Did we read the same article? It spends so many words answering these exact questions with examples and helpful illustrations! Your question: > why should they care that they don't "own" their Instagram post, whatever that means? From the article: > The web Alice created—who she follows, what she likes, what she has posted—is trapped in a box that’s owned by somebody else. To leave it is to leave it behind. On an individual level, it might not be a huge deal. However, collectively, the net effect is that social platforms—at first, gradually, and then suddenly—turn their backs on their users. If you can’t leave without losing something important, the platform has no incentives to respect you as a user. Your question: > can you give examples of good and bad incentive structures in this context? From the article: > Maybe the app gets squeezed by investors, and every third post is an ad. Maybe it gets bought by a congolomerate that wanted to get rid of competition, and is now on life support. Maybe it runs out of funding, and your content goes down in two days. Maybe the founders get acquihired—an exciting new chapter. Maybe the app was bought by some guy, and now you’re slowly getting cooked by the algorithm. > Luckily, web’s decentralized design avoids this. Because it’s easy to walk away, hosting providers are forced to compete, and hosting is now a commodity. I think you’re right that the average person doesn’t care so much as they just want to be entertained or reach a large network, but apathy is not an argument in favor of the status quo.
        jrowen 1y ago
        In fairness to you, I had originally skimmed the article and did later realize that some of my points had been addressed. In fairness to me, in this subthread I was responding to other commenters and asking them questions rather than commenting directly on the article itself. At this point my argument is that the ability to switch providers is not a major concern to most users of these platforms. I don't want a generic social media hosting provider. I want the Facebook experience, or the Instagram experience, or the Twitter experience. I'm happy to be in the garden and on the rails because it's easy and tightly curated. I don't want some Frankenstein amalgamation of data from all these things. I don't want to shoehorn my Instagram world into something else.
tetrisgm 1y ago
It matters because your posts aren’t just entertainment in the moment — they’re your history, your proof of existence online. Platforms treat them as disposable. If Instagram dies or bans you, your years of photos, writing, and connections vanish. Owning your data means your work and identity survive these issues, if you want.
- steveklabnik 1y ago
  An example: I have been a Swarm user for like, fifteen years. As soon as atproto has private records, I'll want to set up syncing that data into my PDS. It's kept track of a huge part of my life, and losing that would be sad.
- jrowen 1y ago
  I think a lot of people treat their own content as disposable also though. I don't know if most people would really care to save or dig through their entire Twitter history, for example. The rise of Stories is evidence of this. We're moving from a culture of preserving ancient pieces of paper to swimming in a never-ending river of data where there's so many things coming at you that you just move forward and don't have a ton of time to look back. People that really want to preserve and archive their content find a way to do it and manage it separately. I have all the pictures that I've posted to Instagram. I have anything I've written that I cared enough to keep. If and when IG dies or I move onto the next thing, am I really going to want to meaningfully preserve and transfer the specific contents of that walled garden somewhere else? Maybe. I can definitely see the value, but it doesn't seem super compelling to me yet. There is something to be said for the uniquely curated walled gardens and the centralized trust and organization and opinions they bring. When I started an Instagram account, I didn't want to transfer my Facebook world, it's a new world with a fresh start. I didn't want the same friends, the same voice for myself, etc. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to dig through all of that to figure out what made sense to carry over.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- hn_acc1 1y ago
toyg 1y ago
> People were totally fine when they had zero ownership or agency over media Disagree. The punk phenomenon was largely about reclaiming that ownership and agency over cultural output, and it was massive in the 70s/80s/90s. The early web was very punk in attitude, with people basically self-publishing. Even in the '00s, there was still a clear distinction between "corporate" portals and grassroots. This phenomenon where even creatives and intellectuals are Just Fine with playing in someone else's heavily-tweaked, hyper-monetized sandbox, is a new development.

by jrowen 1y ago

dgaffney 1y ago

idk if the normal user should necessarily care about data ownership, but I think the incentive structure it creates would be immediately legible to most people

jrowen 1y ago
I'm not sure what that means, can you give examples of good and bad incentive structures in this context?
- dgaffney 1y ago
  sure, https://x.com https://x.com
  - jrowen 1y ago
    So mysterious, so edgy. Hope you at least feel better, because you've utterly failed to communicate a coherent idea.
    - dgaffney 1y ago
      It’s pithy because the request is pithy- if I have to explain the mechanisms at work here i doubt you’re ever going to buy into the theory at all. A short version is what Dan already said - the entire economic foundation of social media is predicated on high exit costs. ATProto takes substantive steps to lower them. The theory in turn is that new businesses will need to develop less extractive models of viability to survive, which will in turn read legibly to users as less exploitative (you decide your feed, you can switch providers, you can choose moderation layers, etc)
      - jrowen 1y ago
        the entire economic foundation of social media is predicated on high exit costs No I think it's predicated on creating a product that people like to use. That's the Step 1 that OSS zealots miss when they focus entirely on these niche lofty ideals. I highly doubt the average Instagram user is yearning for - or would even be enticed by - a version of that same experience that has a lower exit cost. That's the problem with these Twitter clones. "It's just like Twitter, but RESPECTS your data ownership" is not compelling. Just create a freaking compelling and original user experience (the actual hard part that made the big platforms successful) and secretly do whatever you want on the back end.
        steveklabnik 1y ago
        The reason I like Bluesky is that they understand this, and that's why the protocol stuff isn't front and center. They're focused on product first, technology second. The tech serves to create a good product, they don't build the tech first and then hope people find the product acceptable.
        dgaffney 1y ago
        lol, ok
        foltik 1y ago
        There’s nothing compelling and original about the twitter UX compared to all the clones. Pretty much across the board it’s just posting short messages and following others. The entire value of a social media platform is in the network. Accumulating and maintaining one is the actual hard part that made the big players successful.
    - foltik 1y ago
      Did we read the same article? It spends so many words answering these exact questions with examples and helpful illustrations! Your question: > why should they care that they don't "own" their Instagram post, whatever that means? From the article: > The web Alice created—who she follows, what she likes, what she has posted—is trapped in a box that’s owned by somebody else. To leave it is to leave it behind. On an individual level, it might not be a huge deal. However, collectively, the net effect is that social platforms—at first, gradually, and then suddenly—turn their backs on their users. If you can’t leave without losing something important, the platform has no incentives to respect you as a user. Your question: > can you give examples of good and bad incentive structures in this context? From the article: > Maybe the app gets squeezed by investors, and every third post is an ad. Maybe it gets bought by a congolomerate that wanted to get rid of competition, and is now on life support. Maybe it runs out of funding, and your content goes down in two days. Maybe the founders get acquihired—an exciting new chapter. Maybe the app was bought by some guy, and now you’re slowly getting cooked by the algorithm. > Luckily, web’s decentralized design avoids this. Because it’s easy to walk away, hosting providers are forced to compete, and hosting is now a commodity. I think you’re right that the average person doesn’t care so much as they just want to be entertained or reach a large network, but apathy is not an argument in favor of the status quo.
      - jrowen 1y ago
        In fairness to you, I had originally skimmed the article and did later realize that some of my points had been addressed. In fairness to me, in this subthread I was responding to other commenters and asking them questions rather than commenting directly on the article itself. At this point my argument is that the ability to switch providers is not a major concern to most users of these platforms. I don't want a generic social media hosting provider. I want the Facebook experience, or the Instagram experience, or the Twitter experience. I'm happy to be in the garden and on the rails because it's easy and tightly curated. I don't want some Frankenstein amalgamation of data from all these things. I don't want to shoehorn my Instagram world into something else.

tetrisgm 1y ago

It matters because your posts aren’t just entertainment in the moment — they’re your history, your proof of existence online. Platforms treat them as disposable. If Instagram dies or bans you, your years of photos, writing, and connections vanish. Owning your data means your work and identity survive these issues, if you want.

steveklabnik 1y ago
An example: I have been a Swarm user for like, fifteen years. As soon as atproto has private records, I'll want to set up syncing that data into my PDS. It's kept track of a huge part of my life, and losing that would be sad.
jrowen 1y ago
I think a lot of people treat their own content as disposable also though. I don't know if most people would really care to save or dig through their entire Twitter history, for example. The rise of Stories is evidence of this. We're moving from a culture of preserving ancient pieces of paper to swimming in a never-ending river of data where there's so many things coming at you that you just move forward and don't have a ton of time to look back. People that really want to preserve and archive their content find a way to do it and manage it separately. I have all the pictures that I've posted to Instagram. I have anything I've written that I cared enough to keep. If and when IG dies or I move onto the next thing, am I really going to want to meaningfully preserve and transfer the specific contents of that walled garden somewhere else? Maybe. I can definitely see the value, but it doesn't seem super compelling to me yet. There is something to be said for the uniquely curated walled gardens and the centralized trust and organization and opinions they bring. When I started an Instagram account, I didn't want to transfer my Facebook world, it's a new world with a fresh start. I didn't want the same friends, the same voice for myself, etc. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to dig through all of that to figure out what made sense to carry over.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
hn_acc1 1y ago

toyg 1y ago

> People were totally fine when they had zero ownership or agency over media Disagree. The punk phenomenon was largely about reclaiming that ownership and agency over cultural output, and it was massive in the 70s/80s/90s. The early web was very punk in attitude, with people basically self-publishing. Even in the '00s, there was still a clear distinction between "corporate" portals and grassroots. This phenomenon where even creatives and intellectuals are Just Fine with playing in someone else's heavily-tweaked, hyper-monetized sandbox, is a new development.