Here is an interesting thought to post to a mastodon instance. From Dmytri Kleiner via P2P Foundation:
"Going back to an early Internet architecture of cooperative, decentralized servers, as projects such as Diaspora, GNU Social, and others are attempting to do, will not work. This is precisely the sort of architecture that anti-disintermediation was designed to defeat. Decentralized systems need to be designed to be counter-anti-disintermediationist."
@wu_lee he is right, but not for the reasons he provides. The problem is that platforms like Diaspora, GNU Social, Mastodon etc... all rely on ISPs to exist. Kleiner's idea of "[platforms] run[ning] on the computers of the platform’s users" won't solve a thing: ISPs can still lock people the fuck out of the internet as they please. Cooperatively owned ISPs are the only long-term solution to the anti-disintermediation problem.
@Antanicus: do you mean "ISP" as in a "internet connection provider" (like AOL, BT, Virgin Media) rather than "hosting service" (like whatever runs social.coop)?
So agreed, as but both can be counter-d15n'ed, wouldn't full anti-counter-d15n of the *gateways* (as I think you mean) require a mesh network, because the telco infrastructure is private and c-d15n'able?
> do you mean "ISP" as in a "internet connection provider" (like AOL, BT, Virgin Media) rather than "hosting service" (like whatever runs social.coop)?
-Yes, ISP stands for "internet service provider". Some of those also offer hosting services too, but that's not relevant.
- the telco infrastructure is private and c-d15n'able? That's why we need to overtake it and cooperatively own it. Local telcos need be the main target for this
@Antanicus @wu_lee alas there was even a point in Britain (late 19th/early 20th century where many telcos *were* locally owned (albeit by the Council) if not private companies; but because they *wouldn't* federate the Govt nationalised them into the Post Office and (as political views changed) later privatised as British Telecom, with the exception of Hull in Northern England. This remained in Council ownership until quite recently when the *citizens* of Hull *voted* to let it be privatised.
indeed. I am cynical about anything mentioning "blockchain", same with "devops" or all other buzzwords common in tech.
existing co-op ownership model *works* and has worked since 1880s and even survives in ruthlessly competitive environments such as retail.
I often get cycling jackets and winter gear online from a workers co-op in Scotland/North of England (folk there more likely to ride in winter so they sell better items than competitors in the South!)
@vfrmedia Agreed, and Cynicism++
Nevertheless, here we are on social media :) Also, see comments about limitations of coops here https://mastodon.social/@kavbojka/99303489020480815
Holochain may be a gimmick, but it is not a blockchain, as the authors are cynics of that too. I hope it could be a tool *for creating* co-op propsperity.
Not the point I meant.
It says otherwise successful co-ops can be undermined by global/free market forces.
Therefore if you advocate co-ops (and I, & I believe Camille and the authors do), and the article is correct, you need a way to counter that "system problem" to really "survive ruthelessly competetive environments like retail".
@wu_lee @alanz @vfrmedia the "system problem" is real, but if they can't see the deep political implications of the #cooperative movement I doubt they will ever solve it. This piece by Commons Transition, on the contrary, gets it right from the very title http://commonstransition.org/catalan-integral-cooperative/
Soon after the financial crisis I got excited about the potential for the UK based Co-op Group to be an major agent for positive change. Sadly found it to be unlikely.
Since then they sold their massive farmland holdings (what I considered a major asset) and the Co-Op Bank crisis was somewhat bizarrely blamed on too much membership control (which was arguably pretty limited anyway), so that was reduced.
For most membership is much like being part .... @Antanicus @wu_lee @alanz
UK co-op group is actually a load of silos under the same brand, the most joined up one is groceries but each actual co-op involved is a completely separate organisation in legal terms and the membership procedures *vary* across regions.
over here you have the "East of England co-op" but if you cross the border into Norfolk (only 30km) it becomes the "Anglia Regional Co-op" region and thats a completely different one.
There are still a fair few regional coop, that share branding and logistics, but many have, over the years, combined into The Group
East Anglia may be more unusual as the East of England co-op clearly *does* share branding and product range with the rest of CWS Manchester but also has its own unique branding, whereas "The co-op" (food retail store) in SE England is more likely to be owned directly by the main group in Manchester - in this town (Ipswich) you get both the national co-op for funeral services but the local one for food!
Thinking about it the franchise thing probably comes from their expansionary phase early this decade when they bought up supermarket and convenience store chains. Guess at least one of these chains was doing franchising and The Group picked up the franchises then.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!