If those who have been working on open revert to closed in the name of preventing bad actors, closed will win.
If open wins we get things like the web. Imperfect but far greater for humanity than most everyone being online via AOL.
We’re at a precious moment in time for the fediverse. When it comes to social media, open has a real chance right now. And closed is on the ropes. Let’s not blow it.
Via 'Tusky' on my entry level (what I can afford) smart phone.
You are the top & therefore first post of my feed.
I only just read about 'Flipboard' yesterday or Wednesday (it's still Thursday for me as far as I'm concerned) "going fediverse" & barely understood whatever 'Flipboard' is.
But by your second bullet point & mention of 'AOL' I knew exactly what you were saying.
Can we expect a public outline of expectations for Meta and its executives in the same vein?
Something published that identifies what tactics are or are not acceptable, with clear mechanisms to hold Meta accountable if it does not meet those standards?
Completely agree we are in a moment in time that is precious and we will not easily get another chance at this. The real prospect of a broad based open social web is incredibly exciting.
For it to succeed, users will need explicit protections from surveillance and exploitation. Open will not work if users feel like they are just throwing open the door for all their thoughts and ideas to be hoovered up and processed into sophisticated personalized influence campaigns.
It therefore becomes incumbent on those who are building the protocols and applications to communicate the value proposition. Not just the wonderful future that such interoperability will give users. Also, the comfort they can derive from technical features and legal terms, ensuring them that their personal data and content contributions will not be exploited without their consent.
Some very useful and detailed observations in the item below. Risk mitigation will have to be robust and constantly monitored as threats evolve if success & safety are to be found. A key point is that a great many users of mastodon reside within the crosshairs of hardcore zealots on other platforms aiming to neutralize their voices. How federation is managed (or not) may afford those zealots useful operational cloaks.
@mastodonmigration I think there are some important actions to take in the coming months to prepare for the federation with threads. Has anyone made a list of key things we should focus on to protect people in the fediverse? For example @evan talked recently about the importance of being able to delete replies from a thread you started. I think people should also be able to opt out of quote posts as another example. Is there a group of people already talking about this?
Technical features are one thing. Not familiar with any organized work, but that doesn't mean there isn't any. But the other area which would go a very long way to addressing user concerns is explicit public data use and privacy terms. Thinking of an opt-in/out-out framework that gives users explicit control over their content and personal data. Such frameworks, particularly in the EU, are now common for internet services. If we want open social to work, we should do it here too.
Kind of. Actually, the Mastodon Privacy Policy is very limited. It really only gives the instance the right to republish content and not share personal data. When user information and content starts crossing commercial entity lines things get much less defined and potentially problematic. Corporate applications have much different terms and many include license agreements for various purposes, including commercial purposes, which of course users agree to when they sign up.
So, how do rights track content and personal data around this new open social web? If we can answer these questions and construct a satisfactory framework for both users and providers, before it turns into a mess and regulatory solutions start being fought over and mandated, we'd be way ahead and off to the races.
I hope I’m not splitting hairs, but what’s your definition of “win” here? It reads to me like you see it as a zero-sum game. Open survives, closed dies, or vice-versa.
Does it all need to be a competition? Surely the fact that both exist proves the pool that both swim in is open already?
Isn’t the availability of an open option the win already?
@vmatt well, you raise a good question. For purposes of this post Win=most people around the world do social media via an open standard like ActivityPub from whatever app, whatever provider, with whatever group of people, using whatever algorithms with whatever compensation model they prefer.
Lose=the big social media companies continue to own and run and lock in the majority of people on the planet.
There need to be mechanisms to prevent the bad actors from screwing things up, to reward the good actors, and to educate the indifferent so they appreciate their new found openness.
Most people outside the tech industry don’t understand open and aren’t motivated to switch to something just because it’s open.
If open looks and feels the same as closed, closed will win.
If open is more confusing than closed, closed will win.
@mike preventing bad actors and promoting (or make the way easier)efor the good… isn't that a little bit opposed to being open ? Openess is based on liberties tu use/modify/distribute and some constraint (to respect/propagate the licence). It seems that any restriction to such openess would… make the software not open.
But I use "seems" since their may be smart ways to enforce some kind of good behavior policy (mastodon ability ban "bad instance" is a good exemple).
@mike “If open looks and feels the same as closed, closed will win.”
Not sure I fully agree with this one. Definitely agree with all the others, but if the general look and feel of an open system looks like the closed one, the design and UX of it is probably quite good … as long as it’s not exactly like the closed system, because the closed system might have some dark patterns in there that work to lock in and retain users.
@mike Are you saying that if the two products are the same, then the closed system has business resources and other advantages that give them the competitive edge over the open system? Because that I generally agree with, but I’m not sure it’s always a cut and dry case.
@Brendanjones You make a good point that familiarity is helpful. i.e. I don't have to relearn something from scratch. The point I was getting at is that it's not enough for the open experience to be the same... it has to be fundamentally better to motivate people to switch.
This happened with AOL vs. the web. When really cool web sites emerged that were far better than anything AOL could do on their own, people switched. If the web was just a carbon copy of AOL, nobody would have switched.
Add comment