Use Protocols, Not Services (notnotp.com)
from sanitation@lemmy.radio to programming@programming.dev on 09 May 20:19
https://lemmy.radio/post/13235864

#programming

threaded - newest

atzanteol@sh.itjust.works on 09 May 20:55 next collapse

This makes zero sense… Protocols do not “exist”. They are run as services. And the entities behind those services can be subject to the laws of the jurisdiction they belong to.

The law doesn’t specify services, it specifies types of services. It doesn’t care what protocol you’re using.

running_ragged@lemmy.world on 09 May 21:35 collapse

It makes sense. Protocols are defined before services can be implemented on them.

What the article is say is, rather than trusting a service provider to protect your privacy, stick to using services you control, on open protocols that can communicate with external service providers.

If everyone does this, the government needs to knock on a lot more doors to force compliance. And if a node on the protocol chooses to shut down instead of complying, the service as a whole isn’t disrupted. Just the users on that node. And they can control migration to a different node.

atzanteol@sh.itjust.works on 09 May 22:52 collapse

What the article is say is, rather than trusting a service provider to protect your privacy, stick to using services you control,

😑

litchralee@sh.itjust.works on 09 May 22:54 collapse

The premise is good, but the linked article is too short to explain why protocols encourage decentralization, which protects against authoritarism, censorship, and promotes bona-fide free speech (not to be confused with “BuH mAh FrEe SpEeCH!” morons that only like free speech when it agrees with them and don’t when it doesn’t).

For a more lengthy discussion, which includes Internet history, the legacy of the USA’s Section 230 of the CDA and how that impacts the modern web, and what precisely a protocol should avoid doing to successfully achieve the goal of practical decentralization, Mike Masnick’s 2019 paper “Protocols, not Platforms” is particular apt.

Yes, I know I’ve mentioned him a number of times in my comments, but there aren’t too many people who are abreast of technologcal history, the legal framework surrounding the internet, and are skilled writers to condense into words the necessary clarity upon which to build an internet that works for everyone, not just the rich or few.

As a note, BlueSky was directly inspired by his paper and he now sits on the board of BlueSky. Is that antithetical to his 2019 paper? I don’t think so, since commercial success of a protocol is how it has staying power: Amazon’s S3 API, email’s SMTP, and QUIC are all examples of protocols where everyone benefits by their ubiquity, but they had to be commercialized first, by the likes of AWS, AOL and CompuServe, and Google. BlueSky’s opponent is not another protocol like ActivityPub, but rather they challenge the platform formerly known as Twitter. The very existence of a bridge between the ATmosphere and the Fediverse proves that platforms are the real enemy, and we all need to keep that in mind.

No enemies to the left.