I'm all for this more open internet without the walled gardens, but skeptical that we'll get there simply by creating open alternatives. Not only is there a massive amount of inertia behind the walled garden networks that exist now, but you need people to build these complex things. Given how focused most engineers are on compensation (e.g., the obsession with FAANG as the pinnacle), I don't see how open things that likely don't have such a gigantic mountain of money behind it can compete for the necessary resources to execute the vision. Compensation will probably always pull the people who build stuff to the walled garden companies and the alternative will have trouble providing a competitive alternative. Plus, it seems inevitable that if some entity DOES start to build an open alternative to the walled gardens, at some point they'll feel the itch to grow, and slowly but surely I expect little tiny walls will begin to subtly sprout. Email is a bit of a bad comparison since the protocols existed BEFORE the big companies we see today, and that sort of meant they all interoperated from the start. Had we not had email in 1990 and different companies had to come up with their own messaging systems, we'd probably not see the clean interoperability we see today.
That’s why though I like ideas like Solid or the Fediverse, I’m skeptical they can be more than aspirational. The tech here isn’t the hard part, it’s the social factors.
That’s why I’m currently most excited about ATProto (Bluesky)… bootstrapping a protocol as a centralized service that has already hit critical mass, and that can now be fully decentralized on an opt-in basis… feels promising.
What pcorda is describing is actually the premise of Bluesky, which is why it was initially funded through grants and established as a Public Benefit Corporation. The logic has been to find the appropriate hybrid of commercial and non-commercial interest which will support the work.
The initial team came from a bunch of activist projects (typically p2p) and the thing we concluded was that activism requires a theory of change. How is your new technology going to get adopted across the world? The software world still largely operates by markets. Startups are the vehicle for distribution. So we need to behave like a startup while still accomplishing the technical/mission work.
The incredible gift was the initial funding and awareness, which Dorsey deserves a lot of credit for^1. That gave us about 10 months to do protocol work prior to commercialization, which was less than we wanted but just enough to get it done.
ActivityPub deserves a lot of credit too for its progress under an entirely different model, which I tend to describe as communitarian. What both projects did correctly was connect the protocol to an initial application that drives that distribution. Whether either get to "mass" adoption (greater than centralized services) is now the big question.
^1 Apologies for teeing up the inevitable "Dorsey left" conversations.
I looked in at ATProto and it is really well thought out and promising. Thank you for posting this.
It isn't easy to create alternative, but it should not be created as alternative to Facebook for example, but an alternative space for people to connect and express themselves. That will work more then just create another copy.
I think you're at least partly right, which is why the solution is heavy financial penalties against large companies. The problem isn't tech, it's mountains of money. Flatten those mountains.
They will be turned into public utilities. Especially messaging. One country will start. Others will follow.
After which majority that doesnt need the levels of constant Attention the social media addicted free content manufacturing minority does will leave. And social media will face major issues.
Cuz when ever growing Content chases finite non growing eyeballs you cant keep increasing Ad prices every quarter and report profits for ever. This is zuckanomics which is utter shit.
Analysts are already seeing those limits being hit but since they havr seen time and again when limits get hit corporate robots like zuck then do layoffs, buy the competition, capture regulators, avoid tax, sell more personal data, inject more ads etc etc they still see scope for parasitic growth.
But parasitic growth comes with predictable and unpredictable cost. And they will build with time. Just like Jurassic Park. And we know how that story ends.
Human Attention cannot be exploited at population scale or there will be chaos.
Attention is being exploited at scale. It's continuing, and evolving, and might soon manifest as other things (like intention).
I am not sure your predictions are accurate, but I at least would like a couple of them to be. I have thought a lot about the idea of certain ubiquitous and permeating things like social media as utilities, or at least non-profits with a public oversight and standards/requirements to comply with that are substantial, limiting, and entirely designed around what is good for the public rather than what is good for a business. Not sure this will ever actually happen, as time goes on, I only find more arguments for why it should, not less.
> will be turned into public utilities. Especially messaging.
Honestly, yes. It's working for China. With America doing its thing right now, it makes sense for e.g. the EU and Canada to look at whether handing communications and social media to American companies makes sense.
