I've seen people scoffing at the idea that federated services can become popular due to how hard it is to understand, but it's actually quite easy when you think of it using this analogy.
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2023
126 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37712 readers
164 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Also, DNS, and routing protocols. The Internet was designed for it. Walled gardens are an affectation of capital used to create the artificial scarcities it then exploits.
In the old days, when you wanted to do something new on the Internet, you designed a protocol and published an RFC. Perhaps you provide a reference implementations, but maybe you didn't. Anyone who wanted to could implement clients and servers for that protocol. People created things just to empower each other.
Today, capital dominates development on the Internet. When capital wants to provide a new service, it encapsulates it in an app. Users may only interact with the service as an access-controlled black box. Capital creates things to parasitically multiply itself.
The old Internet never went away. It never really even stopped growing in absolute terms. It just got out-competed by the wild malignant growth of the commercial Internet. But, the old one is still there, and today it's like it was in the 1980s, early 90s all over again; people who live on the old Internet are once again finding ourselves alienated from mainstream culture.
Now that debt isn't free and unlimited anymore, things might change. I hope the old, free, distributed, democratic Internet has a revival. Everyone who doesn't find us or can't unplug from the matrix is going to get terribly exploited.
I don’t disagree, but I think it’s a bit of an oversimplification to attribute it all to capital. There is a failure in how the original internet (and traditional FOSS for that matter) envisioned the world.
The original vision was that everything will be distributed. There are protocols, there are implementations, and there are “users”. Where the term “user” encapsulated everyone from the person developing/contributing/maintaining the code, the person deploying and operating it, all the way to the grandparent or child or otherwise absolutely non-technical end user.
The idea was sound. You are a technical user, you could run email server for a set of people you know. Others could do the same. Small companies could start offering paid services, etc.
But the devil is always in the details. Who is maintaining it? Who is keeping everything secure and updated? How does it scale? How frequently do you need to migrate everything because the operator is going out of business or has come down with health issues, or has died. How much trust do you have to put in every operator? People don’t want downtime. People don’t want frequent migrations. People don’t want to have to trust hundreds of small providers and have churn all the time in services they rely on for their day to day.
The rise of a centralized, large, and popular operators of each type of service is inevitable in that case. A couple of large email providers were always distant to happen. Same with storage, messaging, etc. It’s difficult to selfhost everything yourself, and it’s incredibly burdensome to do it for free for a large number of people.
No, we don't disagree, though you might be reading in a stronger point than I made. I don't recall saying it's all capital's fault, whatever "it" is. However, I could probably be baited into doing so.
A tremendous amount of capital has been poured into Internet ventures. It out-competes mere human altruism. I think that if we want to have meaningful human experiences in our lives, we need to intentionally create spaces capital is not interested in occupying, or is prevented from occupying.
I think the janky details are important. Not the actual details, just the fact that they are janky. It forces one to understand and engage with the medium, which gives one power over the medium instead of the other way around. I think humans getting old, sharing what they know, and passing on is a vital feature of the human social experience, not a bug we need to patch around. (Ed Hew's registrar.ca will always be my spiritual domain registry.) There are lots of good business reasons why we would like commodified services provided by fungible service units rather than a society of human relationships, but I suspect there are some important psychological reasons for doing it the messy way, though no benefits to capital.
I think human spaces will always be fleeting and messy, as humanity constantly loses control of the most lucrative and populated spaces to our own greedy wealth. Human spaces are hard to use because they are always shifting, displaced and forced out to the frontiers, where things are less comfortable. In a real way we are all becoming marginalized citizens of an increasingly less human globe-spanning empire.
If I remember correctly, Usenet, which in my mind is a precursor to reddit, worked the same way as well
Remember forums? They were toxics. But legit most of my issues with hardware can be solved on forums.
The problem is, that email isn't really decentralised/federated anymore.
It's impossible to day to setup your own mailserver and have the email accepted by the major email providers (where most of the people are)!
Checkout this article: https://cfenollosa.com/blog/after-self-hosting-my-email-for-twenty-three-years-i-have-thrown-in-the-towel-the-oligopoly-has-won.html
It's sad, but while email is decentralised in it's core protocol, it's execution has become too centralised today. Fortunately, HTML and the web standards are better as we at least still have Firefox (a non-chromium BLINK engine based browser) today. But even there, chrome takes up too much of the market share.
Doesn’t prevent me from doing it.
I send a mail to you and your shitty mail provider blocks it as spam, even though I setup my SPF and DKIM entries correctly? Well that’s your problem, complain to your provider then lmao.
Of course that cannot be applicable to every use case. Sometimes you need a mail to go through in which case I still use GMail or iCloud Mail, unfortunately.
But it became like that because we let it become like that. We should use email as it was intended to be used, and if it doesn’t work, well fuck it. It’s the recipient’s fault for choosing a shitty or “non-compliant” provider.
While I can understand your sentiment, the problem is that many people simply didn't care, and hence they never demanded that from their providers or moved away when they added such anti-competitite policies.
For the large majority of humans, even understanding what the hell the internet is and what computers do is still a mystery. I can understand, that for most people, it was difficult enough to get used to email and cloud stuff in the first place.
But now, over the past decade, many people have often experienced the problems of corporate-owned non-decentralised services. (Twitter, EverNote, etc.)
And with these experiences, it's much easier to convince and have people move over to alternatives.
Again. I understand why you're 'angry'. And I feel that too. But I also see, that many people don't care and simply take the most comfortable options as they don't see the risks in lock-in.
The OG federated social media was Usenet.
Unfortunately, what email has also shown is that platforms can develop much faster than protocols. I hope all works out for lemmy in the end, but it will be interesting.
Absolutely. Now we're stuck using a protocol that has zero encryption because decades ago no one thought about that. All our private correspondence is readable by every ISP and government it passes. If only we could make an email 2.0...
No, encryption was considered. It was supported from pretty early on via PGP. If you check out decent mail clients (obligatory digdeeper), you'll find the tooling.
PGP email has nothing to do with the email protocol. All your message metadata and headers are still not encrypted/can’t be encrypted. You can only encrypt some payload with a PGP key, and it’s up to the receiver to figure out whether or not they want to trust any of the message metadata. The entire envelope is still plaintext everywhere. PGP email is just email, but you’re sending some random encrypted text in it.
Why didn't it ever become the norm?
Encryption was illegal back in those days, especially for export. Google “crypto wars”.
Furthermore it was quite computationally expensive. Modern CPUs have special instructions to work with AES and other algorithms, but back then it had to be done with individual instructions and with slow clock speeds.
I use GPG mail with Apple Mail client and it works great. Just need to get the public keys of people you want to send encrypted email to.
Not sure how anyone can say “GPG” and “Works great” in the same sentence tbh. GPG is a usability nightmare except for the most advanced users who use it. Good luck trying to get your house contractor or doctor or representative or non-techie friends and family or really anyone to give you their “public key”
Surprisingly I've heard that the email analogy is not very useful for explaining federation. But I guess not that surprising with people <=18. They've probably never even had an email address outside of school provisions or whatever.
Could you elaborate on that?
Because they use fone number to register for things instead
I've been told people under {some age, maybe 35 now?} only use e-mail at work. I'm not actually sure how this is really possible, because you need e-mail to get all those "social accounts", as well as a lot of Government stuff (like DMV stuff), Banking and more, but it's what I've been told.
I was more asking about the analogy not being good. I don't know anything specific besides the analogy at the moment, so I'd love to know why it might fall short
I think the analogy is great - but analogies only work if the person is more familiar with the analogy than the actual topic - if the understanding is the same or less, it doesn't function well.
I mean, in a lot of ways the fediverse is reinventing Usenet too, but if you don't know the technical details of Usenet, that analogy doesn't help you either.
This is exactly the analogy I use even trying to explain fediverse to normies.
Email is my go-to example when explaining fedi to unfamiliar people. Its especially accessible to non-technical users because almost everyone has sent an email to someone with a different provider.
I was explaining it to a friend today, and I came to the conclusion that Lemmy is a LOT like the old FIDOnet message network that was used on BBS's.
Except it doesn't take six days for the reply to come back. (I say this ironically, replying six days after your comment.)
Yep. Sometimes, the old ways are best.
Telegraph has entered the chat.
Wow, this makes a ton of sense and I had never thought about it. Thanks for the example!
Its a reasonable analogy, but were not there yet. While mastodon instances will talk to mastodon instances, and pixelfed instances will talk to pixelfed instances, and kbin instances will talk to kbin instances, at the moment the intercommunication between apps is a real issue. Imagine postfix wouldn't reliably talk to exchange servers, that would be a real barrier to adoption. I'm hopeful this will get sorted, but were on the bleeding edge at the moment.
What do you mean? I can talk to mastodon, kbin, pixelfed, peertube, etc users from inside lemmy and same with my mastodon
This is 1. not true, as shortwavesurfer says and 2. not an equivalent comparison. This would be like saying that mastodon doesn't talk to glitch or pleroma. But they do, so even if this comparison was equivalent, it'd be false.
view more: next ›