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

51–60 of 72 posts

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

#51

Post by lkhhj »

rqs wrote: post #50
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…

One question: During the time which Facebook Messenger and Google Hangout are both using XMPP, is it possible for a Google Hangout user to send message to a Facebook Messenger user via Google Hangout client?

Hmm, I don't remember, but I doubt it. The point of FB Messenger using XMPP was that you could add your FB account to your XMPP client and chat with your friends from there

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

#52

Post by Multicomp »

rqs wrote: post #50
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…

One question: During the time which Facebook Messenger and Google Hangout are both using XMPP, is it possible for a Google Hangout user to send message to a Facebook Messenger user via Google Hangout client?

I forget where I read it now but if memory serves that was part of the reason why Google Talk xmpp federation was turned off because Facebook was importing Google Talk users but then not also sharing the xmpp federation so in order to stop bleeding users, Google Talk turned off their xmpp federation.

This is an anecdote until I can find a source.

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

#53

Post by liotier »

rqs wrote: post #50
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…

One question: During the time which Facebook Messenger and Google Hangout are both using XMPP, is it possible for a Google Hangout user to send message to a Facebook Messenger user via Google Hangout client?

Facebook never supported XMPP federation - only chat with Facebook contacts.

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

#54

Post by shireboy »

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…

Article addresses the “popular client” problem and Gmail in particular. Yes, oligopoly but still possible to shift providers if any one client gets too controlling. Leading to incentive for popular client to play nicely.

I don’t see it as an end-all, but do think it’s ridiculous that, say, iMessage only lets you iMessage other iPhones and falls to sms/mms for others. What if Gmail only let you send rich text to other Gmail users, falling back to plain text outside their bubble? There is zero that iMessage does that couldn’t be done in xmpp, or at least an open protocol. Similar with social media. It’s all the same thing: friends, posts, wall. Use ActivityPub or something similar and open it up. Won’t be perfect, but will be better than one platform holding all the cards.

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

#55

Post by randallsquared »

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 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't remember if I ever resolved this.

"Why do more and more corporate servers ignore SMTP retry rules?" It was nice when only spammers did that and graylisting was effective.

"No, it's not my server that's sending those spam emails that spoof my domain; I checked. Yes, really." This happened more than a decade ago, and I assume it either stopped or was solved by the spread of TLS or something.

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

#56

Post by jmull »

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…

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 like 8chan (or worse). If not, there's someone, somewhere deciding what can and can't be shared on each platform (like there is now).

I think the fundamental confusion here is the idea that some kind of protocols vs. platform dynamic even exists.

Social media platforms are trying to achieve a captivating user experience built off our social nature to monetize our attention. Protocols are used, but they are deeply buried implementation details.

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

#57

Post by notyourday »

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.

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.

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

#59

Post by cameronbrown »

grawprog wrote: post #36
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…

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.

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

#60

Post by cameronbrown »

joe_the_user wrote: post #40
dansman805 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is this different than Slack? Or even worse, Facebook News Feed, where the average lifespan of content seems to be converging on zero.
Post reply on HN