Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

knightcolumbia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#31

Post by nextos »

dogcomplex wrote: post #24
patrickaljord wrote: post #16

The "Protocols, Not Platforms" debate is naive and misses the point. Here is why: - Let's say someone builds a social network protocol (including messaging, photo sharing etc). - Let's be generous and say this protocol becomes so successful it turns into a de facto standards. - The market will rush to build the best client for the protocol. Facebook, Google, maybe an outsider will come up with the best client that ha…

An excellent counterargument. Yes, one might concede that protocols have not and probably will not win out over platforms in a free market. But if we're advocating that the big tech utilities be required by law to open source their protocols then your argument doesn't apply, as of right here: > Overtime, the most popular client will get a quasi-monopoly and will become incompatible with the rest of clients, no one wi…

I also think regulation is important. Like energy markets, some software, particularly communication systems, favor big players due to network effects.

So regulators should prevent anticompetitive behaviors such as what happened with Google Talk. When Google Talk was a new product, it was a fantastic XMPP implementation. They even contributed the Jingle extension to implement VoIP.

Once they became a dominant force, XMPP federation was removed effectively making it impossible to communicate with Gmail accounts from other providers. Later on, with the transition to Google Hangouts, XMPP was replaced by a proprietary protocol making it impossible to use even a different client other than Google's.

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#32

Post by dansman805 »

joe_the_user wrote: post #30
cameronbrown wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralised group chat communication seems like it would work very well as the future model of social networking. Content online could spread organically instead of the surveillance panopticon telling us exactly what we want to hear.

Just to explain my preference for something allowing post/micro-blogging/blogging, I use discord for organizing real life activity but it really doesn't seem set-up for discussion of "issues" (political, programming, etc), here Facebook, Reddit or HN does best imo. That said, topics are a bit like tags and a bit like sub-channels and if you could combine these qualities, you might have a nice merger of the approaches…

On the other hand, discord server's do exist for that kind of communication; there are discord servers I am in that contain thousands of members and are about robotics, and often will have meaningful technical discussion about programming, design, etc.

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#33

Post by nine_k »

zzzcpan wrote: post #27
patrickaljord wrote: post #16

The "Protocols, Not Platforms" debate is naive and misses the point. Here is why: - Let's say someone builds a social network protocol (including messaging, photo sharing etc). - Let's be generous and say this protocol becomes so successful it turns into a de facto standards. - The market will rush to build the best client for the protocol. Facebook, Google, maybe an outsider will come up with the best client that ha…

> Overtime, the most popular client will get a quasi-monopoly and will become incompatible with the rest of clients Yes, but it doesn't have to be this way. It's possible to design systems that align all those predatory capitalist incentives of participants with keeping control decentralized. Bittorrent and bitcoin are prime examples of this. And it definitely can be done for more applications. There is one problem t…

It cannot make you rich quick.

It can still provide a comfortable living to those who offer a superior implementation with a paid service, like Proton Mail, or whatever IP telephony provider you respect.

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#36

Post by grawprog »

joe_the_user wrote: post #30
cameronbrown wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralised group chat communication seems like it would work very well as the future model of social networking. Content online could spread organically instead of the surveillance panopticon telling us exactly what we want to hear.

Just to explain my preference for something allowing post/micro-blogging/blogging, I use discord for organizing real life activity but it really doesn't seem set-up for discussion of "issues" (political, programming, etc), here Facebook, Reddit or HN does best imo. That said, topics are a bit like tags and a bit like sub-channels and if you could combine these qualities, you might have a nice merger of the approaches…

A decentralized platform similar to reddit with more autonomy and control over subreddits is sort of what I envisioned the parent poster's comment to be referring to. Something that more easily allows a custom format, likely with easier media uploading capabilities and a higher level of segregation between disparate subreddits.

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#37

Post by larrysalibra »

patrickaljord wrote: post #16

The "Protocols, Not Platforms" debate is naive and misses the point. Here is why: - Let's say someone builds a social network protocol (including messaging, photo sharing etc). - Let's be generous and say this protocol becomes so successful it turns into a de facto standards. - The market will rush to build the best client for the protocol. Facebook, Google, maybe an outsider will come up with the best client that ha…

I agree what you described - one client getting really popular is a huge risk, but the risk is not the popularity of one client, it’s the popularity of the client without any user knowledge of the underlying protocol. I recently wrote about XMPP and this problem https://salibra.com/p/the-death-of-jabber-8ea395e82f5b

The risk you’ve described isn’t as insurmountable: So far, bitcoin, ethereum, & BitTorrent serve as strong counter examples to the problem you state. They’ve remained clearly defined protocols that users seek out instead of a particular client and have proven hard for popular clients to fork.

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#38

Post by dredmorbius »

i_am_nomad wrote: post #11
dragonwriter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've said this 1000 times, but garbage like Facebook or Twitter could be replaced overnight by a protocol. No, it couldn't, and saying it more won't make it any more true. That is, sure, you can design a protocol that supports manpy of the same basic functions (and such protocols exist already), but centralized governance is ultimately part of what people want, or at least essential to stop a social network into de…

Neither of you have provided any meaningful arguments to support your positions. I would say that Mastodon is an example that supports the OP’s point. But in the real, practical world, a social network needs investment and marketing to catch on and extend to a useful amount of people. So in that sense, you’re correct as well.

Mastodon is minuscule, and has already been showing growing pains.

(I'm on Mastodon, have been for two years, and love it. But it is no majick bullet.)

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#39

Post by Causality1 »

I've long felt that we need a "post office of the internet". Some type of communication platform that's truly neutral, doesn't attempt to censor or manipulate the activities of its users aside from enforcing the law, and isn't liable in any way for their behavior. Sure, you can send a bomb or a death threat or an illegal copy of a movie through the mail, but the post office isn't liable for the actions of its customers. Its only responsibility is to filter illegal content as best it can, and that's all.

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

#40

Post by joe_the_user »

dansman805 wrote: post #32
joe_the_user wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to explain my preference for something allowing post/micro-blogging/blogging, I use discord for organizing real life activity but it really doesn't seem set-up for discussion of "issues" (political, programming, etc), here Facebook, Reddit or HN does best imo. That said, topics are a bit like tags and a bit like sub-channels and if you could combine these qualities, you might have a nice merger of the approaches…

On the other hand, discord server's do exist for that kind of communication; there are discord servers I am in that contain thousands of members and are about robotics, and often will have meaningful technical discussion about programming, design, etc.

How does that work? I've only been on discords with maybe ten people and it seems earlier comments basically get lost in the flood of later comment. You may communicate to another person or other people and those people might learn stuff but a given comment effectively isn't public, post isn't equivalent to publishing. Even adding channels for official documents, things simply get lost in the stream.
Post reply on HN