This didn’t have to be the case. It was purpose built around these megalithic designs by these large companies. Now advertising and culture curation ensure it’s always displayed in a positive light. Google, Apple, MS, all know to use angelic white light in their branding (slight hazy, blurry, seems to penetrate where it shouldn’t be). Apple stores even mimic a church design. It’s not that people don’t want to. They don’t know any better and are addicted.
These are not scions of capitalism. These are anti-competitive ecosystems by design. Having to do more work wouldn’t be a thing if the protocols were designed to aid communication outside of corporate channels. People are afraid, not unwilling. Big brother says it’s not safe, so they go to the cozy sphere they know and regrettably trust with too much of their lives.
It’s a nation state problem too. The US gets economic advantage from having the major players local. It’s hard not to lose ground when a federated system in Sweden or China can chip away at your control base. So we subsidize and solidify. We get temporary advantage for long-term decay and virtual feudalism.
People lived under monarchies for a long time before a streak of luck, war, and land changed it.
> This didn’t have to be the case. It was purpose built around these megalithic designs by these large companies.
I agree, because it was the easiest way to solve the problem of providing value to users. Redundancy and coupling of unrelated implementations is expensive. In the extreme, its O(N^2) expensive if you're going to bridge every separate system. Far easier to just build it once.
> Having to do more work wouldn’t be a thing if the protocols were designed to aid communication outside of corporate channels.
Sure, but rephrasing that would be "if companies did more work at no direct benefit to themselves, it would be easier for people to not use their software." Where is the benefit to them? And if this were easy to do, why hasn't the open source community done it? The only thing stopping them is when they build it, nobody (modulo the rounding error of dyed-in-the-wool computer fans) actually wants to use it.
> It’s not that people don’t want to. They don’t know any better and are addicted... People are afraid, not unwilling. Big brother says it’s not safe, so they go to the cozy sphere they know and regrettably trust with too much of their lives.
I used to believe this. I have come around to the thinking that after spending decades telling people what they should want, maybe I'm wrong and people know what they want better than me.
Mastodon is free and (relatively) easy to install and maintain. Why do people stay on Twitter? It's not because Elon Musk is tricking them.
I think you make a point regarding Big Brother, but it underestimates the benefits of staying in the maintained channels. If someone steals my money out of my bank account, the FDIC makes me whole. Who makes me whole when someone steals my Bitcoin? If Facebook did something illegal to me, they're a big enough target for the FBI to intervene. Who intervenes if my Mastodon admin uses my PII against me? They're judgment-proof, and criminal investigation doesn't enforce on small potataoes like that.
Larger, consolidated firms are bigger targets and easier to keep in line. A lot of crime happens in the ecosystem of small communities not in the spotlight.
> People lived under monarchies for a long time before a streak of luck, war, and land changed it.
People have all the tools to change out of corporate systems right now; they don't because it would make their lives worse, materially. They're not waiting for a savior to walk them off the plantation; they had the option to wander off in the wildnerness and they chose to live (virtually) where people are.
> I agree, because it was the easiest way to solve the problem of providing value to users. Redundancy and coupling of unrelated implementations is expensive. In the extreme, it’s O(N^2) expensive if you're going to bridge every separate system. Far easier to just build it once.
Of course it’s cheaper when you have the government’s backing and tax benefits to help you. The real question is.. cheaper compared to what? There are no other options now.
> Sure, but rephrasing that would be "if companies did more work at no direct benefit to themselves, it would be easier for people to not use their software." Where is the benefit to them? And if this were easy to do, why hasn't the open source community done it? The only thing stopping them is when they build it, nobody (modulo the rounding error of dyed-in-the-wool computer fans) actually wants to use it.
It’s not a fair fight at this point. Google won’t rank those projects higher than they’re legally required to, so not many people see it. They don’t have the propag.. er.. media reach, so they remain an unknown to fear. The big guys release a press snippet and get 90% user coverage. Good will has value, but large companies lose that value proposition once they reach critical mass and can remove “Don’t be evil” from their manifesto. This is a scale and control problem.
> I used to believe this. I have come around to the thinking that after spending decades telling people what they should want, maybe I'm wrong and people know what they want better than me.
Mastodon is free and (relatively) easy to install and maintain. Why do people stay on Twitter? It's not because Elon Musk is tricking them.
I think you make a point regarding Big Brother, but it underestimates the benefits of staying in the maintained channels. If someone steals my money out of my bank account, the FDIC makes me whole. Who makes me whole when someone steals my Bitcoin? If Facebook did something illegal to me, they're a big enough target for the FBI to intervene. Who intervenes if my Mastodon admin uses my PII against me? They're judgment-proof, and criminal investigation doesn't enforce on small potataoes like that.
Larger, consolidated firms are bigger targets and easier to keep in line. A lot of crime happens in the ecosystem of small communities not in the spotlight.
Mastodon kind of sucks right now, to be fair. It’s slow, barely knows what to show, and then switches around posts randomly. Twitter has users, and that has value. It’s easier to setup a centralized posting platform than something community driven. People generally want what is fastest and works. A marginally better platform isn’t worth switching to for most people. People generally want the bare minimum to meet their criteria. The problem is that these are “free” services where the true cost is amortized over time. They know what they want, but they have nothing to gauge with anymore. It’s not like you can compare sticker prices. The price is well hidden.
Another issue with safety is that you need a lawyer for digital crime, not a police officer. That’s the barrier. We don’t have well defined law. It’s the slightly less wild west.
> People have all the tools to change out of corporate systems right now; they don't because it would make their lives worse, materially. They're not waiting for a savior to walk them off the plantation; they had the option to wander off in the wildnerness and they chose to live (virtually) where people are.
They’re trained from a young age to admire brands and creators. Few question the sphere they live in; fewer still take action. The tools to leave are inaccessible when you have no free time left after work and family duties. Interop is key to competition now that the reactor is pumping. We don’t have real competition without it. They’re not waiting for a savior because they don’t feel the effects daily beyond a few ads. It’s a slow process that hides the true outcome.
XMPP never went away. Nor did IRC. Nor did USENET.
The entire old Internet is still there, protocol-wise. It is unused because users don't want it; it's clunky, it requires manual maintenance, it just plain doesn't work as well.
> Google won’t rank those projects higher than they’re legally required to, so not many people see it
You don't have to invoke a conspiracy to explain why these projects rank low. Google bases its rankings (primarily) on "interest to users" signals. And they just don't have the interest. It is a chicken-egg problem, but the egg smells. When Facebook has 2 billion daily active users and Mastodon just topped 1.8 million, the naive assumption is that Google 2,000 times as likely to guess if you're talking about "social network," you mean Facebook.
And it's not about propaganda. No amount of propaganda is going to make my mom comfortable running her own Mastodon node, or help her find my grandfather's posts when he's on a different node. Users don't want the complexity. The web used to be more complex and we moved away from that as people.
> Mastodon kind of sucks right now
... and is pretty much the best thing outside the walled gardens.
That's the issue. The wildnerness is full of tigers.
> They’re not waiting for a savior because they don’t feel the effects daily beyond a few ads. It’s a slow process that hides the true outcome.
I think we agree on this but I don't know what you mean by "true outcome." The true outcome is people use the Internet for what they want and then get on with their lives.
These are not scions of capitalism. These are anti-competitive ecosystems by design. Having to do more work wouldn’t be a thing if the protocols were designed to aid communication outside of corporate channels. People are afraid, not unwilling. Big brother says it’s not safe, so they go to the cozy sphere they know and regrettably trust with too much of their lives.
It’s a nation state problem too. The US gets economic advantage from having the major players local. It’s hard not to lose ground when a federated system in Sweden or China can chip away at your control base. So we subsidize and solidify. We get temporary advantage for long-term decay and virtual feudalism.
People lived under monarchies for a long time before a streak of luck, war, and land changed it.