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

61–70 of 72 posts

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

#61

Post by grawprog »

cameronbrown wrote: post #59
grawprog wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Subreddit style communication is something I was considering yep, but I was definitely referring to Discord style server based group chats. If Facebook moved their entire platform in that direction (and hopefully abandoning news feed) I'd be really happy.

Yeah the discord group chat model is definitely better for talking actively with people, but for any kind of lasting content I find it pretty difficult to figure out.

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

#62

Post by samirillian »

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…

Political problems require political solutions. Us nerds in tech too often assume some magic bullet protocol or other data structure or algorithm will fix how humans relate. But at the end of the day, power is about power, and a protocol or a platform is just on form of power.

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

#63

Post by mbowcutt »

jmull wrote: post #56
dogcomplex wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

An open-source protocol won't prevent a platform from accepting content only from approved sources and serving it only to approved clients. Facebook could start using on open protocol today, then block anyone not signed in through facebook and the result is nothing at all would change. Maybe you're thinking platforms will somehow also be required to accept and share content from anyone? If so, all platforms become li…

I don't know about that. Authentication mechanisms seem within scope of any protocol, and if an implementation refuses service based on some extra requirement (such as being signed in to Facebook) then that implementation is simply not up to spec.

> Facebook could start using an open protocol today

Richard Stallman would prefer you to use the term "free protocol", which I think is what we're all trying to say here ;)

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

#64

Post by emptysongglass »

notyourday wrote: post #57
emptysongglass wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not “practically impossible” for individuals to set up their own email servers with good deliverability. I run my own and emails get delivered to my intended receivers all the time. If you want email to become more distributed someone ought to come along to make a Helm that isn't so expensive. You just have to make the protocol sticky enough and distributed enough so one corp doesn't wield Total Control.

You are a fluke of a customer. My bodega owner is a customer. So are his kids that help him. And an old mexican lady who works in a hipster coffee shop because hipsters that own it cannot be bothered to get up at 6am to open at 7am. They use email. None of them are interested in "setting up their own email server". They are interested in being able to send email and get email.

Please read my comment fully. Helm is one such solution that gets out of your way but is too expensive. The price on these do it for you boxes needs to come down. It doesn't take much capability beyond email for one of these boxes to convince an everyday user.

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

#65

Post by emptysongglass »

randallsquared wrote: post #55
emptysongglass wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not “practically impossible” for individuals to set up their own email servers with good deliverability. I run my own and emails get delivered to my intended receivers all the time. If you want email to become more distributed someone ought to come along to make a Helm that isn't so expensive. You just have to make the protocol sticky enough and distributed enough so one corp doesn't wield Total Control.

> I run my own and emails get delivered to my intended receivers all the time. That's a pretty low bar, unless you mean "all the time" as "every single time". :) Before I gave up and moved to AWS Workmail this year, I'd run a personal mail server for about 20 years. Major issues were not too uncommon, and minor ones were constant: "Why can everyone in the world get mail from my server except outlook.com users?" I can…

I have had a Gmail account since the beginning and have, not infrequently, had my sent email arrive in spam. These arguments against the ease with which we may decentralize basic ubiquitious protocols lean on, I don't know, a basic bleak outlook?

People thought I was crazy for unplugging from every Facebook service. No one would follow me over to my messenger of choice they said. I proved them wrong. And you can too. But it takes a little patience and a little persistence and little sticking to your ideals. Our basic internet freedoms are worth this.

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

#66

Post by PaulHoule »

SMTP is a better example than NNTP because it is so much more mainstream.

SMTP had a spam crisis. Early on providers were loathe to filter at the server. They didn't want the responsibility. Then there was the "love letter" virus that brought the net to its knees. Filtering became a requirement for survival but e-mail deliverability became a problem, first with AOL as a big provider, later with gmail, etc.

SMTP is nominally open but if gmail wants to trash the mail you send you may be helpless.

Any new protocol has to face spam not only as an annoyance but also a dos threat. Look at how unusable the web has becomes with multiple pop-up windows, sites that say mobile is the future but God forbid you try to close the ads on your tablet, 50mbps downloads to see 5000 bytes of text, ...

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

#67

Post by UncleMeat »

emptysongglass wrote: post #47
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…

It is not “practically impossible” for individuals to set up their own email servers with good deliverability. I run my own and emails get delivered to my intended receivers all the time. If you want email to become more distributed someone ought to come along to make a Helm that isn't so expensive. You just have to make the protocol sticky enough and distributed enough so one corp doesn't wield Total Control.

I would wager than fewer than 1/100,000 adults on the planet can succeed at setting up and maintaining their own email server with good deliverability. That's "practically impossible".

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

#69

Post by jmull »

mbowcutt wrote: post #63
jmull wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An open-source protocol won't prevent a platform from accepting content only from approved sources and serving it only to approved clients. Facebook could start using on open protocol today, then block anyone not signed in through facebook and the result is nothing at all would change. Maybe you're thinking platforms will somehow also be required to accept and share content from anyone? If so, all platforms become li…

I don't know about that. Authentication mechanisms seem within scope of any protocol, and if an implementation refuses service based on some extra requirement (such as being signed in to Facebook) then that implementation is simply not up to spec. > Facebook could start using an open protocol today Richard Stallman would prefer you to use the term "free protocol", which I think is what we're all trying to say here ;)

Authentication mechanisms are in scope (obviously). The set of authorized accessors is not, right? I guess people are not accounting for the distinction, but it’s rather critical here.

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

#70

Post by MikeGale »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #26
MikeGale wrote: post #21

People who want to take control of their own lives, and curate the mix of knowledge / fact / falsity / opinion / propaganda / disinformation / useful-idiocy in their own heads can technically head in this direction today. I think a key ingredient is translators that move content out of the platform-bubbles into the world you control. You can move material between RSS, email, blog channel easily, if you choose. Harder…

Export options, even if mandated by the GDPR, are one avenue people could use. Though I imagine the tooling probably demands a lot of maintenance to harmonize all the different forms.

In that regard Facebook has improved recently. Their export now has a JSON format which is useful. They still exclude so much that it may be better to scrape from the UI though.
Post reply on HN