How to Kill a Decentralised Network (such as the Fediverse)
ploum.net
How to Kill a Decentralised Network (such as the Fediverse) écrit par Ploum, Lionel Dricot, ingénieur, écrivain de science-fiction, développeur de logiciels libres.

Why YSK: If we want to keep the Fediverse in the hands of its users and prevent “enshittification” (search it), it’s good to know how corporations kill grassroots projects like this.

I saw this in another thread on /c/Showerthoughts. I think it’s important for this to be circulated widely so that the broader Fediverse community is aligned. We don’t want admins second-guessing their decisions when users start infighting. We should be united in our thinking and ready to protect our platform.

  • Noedel@lemmy.world
    2·
    1 year ago

    Great read!

    I remember me using software called trillian that supported logins to all chat networks, so I could use ICQ, Google, MSN and AOL all at the same time

    • TheBeege@lemmy.worldOP
      1·
      1 year ago

      Oh man, I remember Trillian, too. That was great. Must have been a nightmare to build, though

      • exscape@kbin.social
        0·
        1 year ago

        It was “just” a bunch of clients in one though, AFAIK it couldn’t connect people from different protocols.
        Pidgin still exists; I used it probably 20 years back on Linux.

        • TheBeege@lemmy.worldOP
          1·
          1 year ago

          Ahh, I recall using Pidgin, too. I think i ended up favoring it over Trillian. I already had accounts on all the services, so it worked out. I guess thinking about it, if only basic chat was supported, it may not have been terrible supporting everything

    • thorhs@kbin.social
      0·
      1 year ago

      I also remember when XMPP wa still the cool kid on the block. Gtalk and other chat networks supported it and allowed federation. I tan my own XMPP server and could talk to users on other servers and even networks. But then Google cut the federation and eventually all external access.

      It could have been the next email, but big corporations were already in the chat space and they all walked in their user base.

      I’m fairly certain that if email (SMTP) hadn’t been the dominant protocol, we would have walled gardens there as well.

      • soweli-mute@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        the internet without the existance of email as a de-facto proof of identity and account recovery protocol would certainly be interesting.

        almost every single site these days requires you to have an email to sign up. it would be interesting to know what system we would have used instead if email wasn’t an option.

  • vegantomato@lemmy.world
    2·
    1 year ago

    Remember that Reddit also started off small, then grew, then got bought, then turned into shit (*). However, I think that Lemmy has a greater chance of surviving as long as people keep everything truly decentralized. We shouldn’t all flock to “lemmy.world” or any other one Lemmy instance. Because if we do, that specific Lemmy instance will also be sold (along with the userbase) and turned into a corporate money-making machine.

    (*) Some would argue that Reddit has always been shit, but that’s besides the point…

  • Wooster@startrek.website
    0·
    1 year ago

    Okay, but realistically, how can we prevent this from happening in the future?

    We’ve already, according to the article, dodged one bullet; but there’s no reason to expect that it’ll be the only one.

    Also, due to the nature of the Fediverse being open source, there’s no way to prevent Facebook or other corporate monstrosities from building their own hooks.

    I think we need to be prepared to preemptively defederate from the likes of Google, Reddit, Facebook or whatever. Not just this instance, but the greater Fediverse should have a United policy to reject association with those who would consume us and spit us out.

    • TheBeege@lemmy.worldOP
      1·
      1 year ago

      Agreed. We need to treat this like OUR platform. It’s not the admins’ platform. It’s not the devs’ platform. It’s OUR platform. We create (or at least link) the content. I think that if we maintain this mindset, people will reject corporate attempts to inject themselves into our platform.

      Edit: Not to say we shouldn’t appreciate devs and admins. See the thread continued

  • Hopps@lemmy.world
    01·
    1 year ago

    Here is a GPT4 tldr summary, and thoughts on how to avoid this from happening to us:

    Summary:

    • The Fediverse is a decentralized network of servers communicating through the ActivityPub protocol.

    • Large corporations like Google and Microsoft have a history of either trying to control or make decentralized networks irrelevant.

    • Google joined the XMPP federation initially but implemented their own closed version, causing compatibility issues and slowing down the development of XMPP.

    • Eventually, Google stopped federating with other XMPP servers, leading to a decline in XMPP’s popularity and growth.

    • Microsoft used similar tactics to hinder competing projects, such as the Samba network file system and open source office suites like OpenOffice and LibreOffice.

    • The strategy involves extending protocols or developing new ones to deny entry to open source projects.

    • Proprietary formats and complicated specifications are used to maintain dominance in markets.

    • Meta’s potential entry into the Fediverse raises concerns as it could lead to fragmentation and a loss of freedom.

    • The Fediverse should focus on its values of freedom, ethics, and non-commercialism to avoid being co-opted by large corporations.

    How a new federated decentralized platform can avoid this fate:

    1. Stay true to the principles: The platform should prioritize and uphold the values of freedom, openness, and decentralization.

    2. Develop open and robust protocols: Use open standards and ensure the protocol’s specifications are transparent, well-documented, and not controlled by a single entity.

    3. Foster a strong community: Encourage collaboration, participation, and diversity within the community to avoid reliance on any single company or organization.

    4. Emphasize user control: Give users control over their data and privacy, allowing them to choose which servers and communities to join and ensuring their content is not subject to corporate surveillance.

    5. Focus on user experience: Create a user-friendly interface and provide features that attract and retain users, making it easy for them to engage and connect with others.

    6. Avoid centralization of power: Design the platform in a way that distributes authority and influence across the network, preventing any single entity from gaining too much control.

    7. Promote interoperability: Support compatibility with other decentralized platforms and protocols to encourage communication and collaboration across different networks.

    8. Educate and raise awareness: Educate users about the benefits of decentralized platforms, the risks of centralized control, and the importance of supporting independent, community-driven initiatives.

    By following these principles, a new federated decentralized platform can strive to maintain its integrity, preserve user freedom, and resist the influence of large corporations seeking to control or make it irrelevant.