What if I told you that building Flancia carries a risk? Would you like to hear about it now?


One risk in Flancia is that the tools we use to reach it might turn out to also be sufficient to reach Antiflancia; by building or improving such tools we could be enabling futures that are opposed to pro-social good.

I try to think often of this risk, keep it in check. To manage it, among other things, it is that I try to keep Flancia friendly and maximally inclusive.

I know so far of only one group of people who aren't invited to Flancia. By definition this group I see as being in Antiflancia. Would you like to know who is in this group?

I say it's the [[fascists]] who have to stay outside until they've put down all weapons and changed their violent ways -- due to the [[paradox of tolerance]].

@an_agora @agora

@neil the fascists, due to the [[paradox of tolerance]]. Meaning those who don't give rational debate a chance, preferring violence.


Flancia must be strongly and actively strategic against capture by Antiflancians then no?

Perhaps counterantidisintermediation is of interest as an instructional parallel.

@neil I think it should be; the first line of protection is to make Flancia 1. fully optional, in the strong sense that people should be able to ignore it without ill effects -- hopefully this quality is symmetric w.r.t. Antiflancia -- and 2. made up of/supported by tools which are free and easily reproducible, so they can't be "captured", at worst only cloned/coopted.

@neil The Agora is meant to have both qualities, plus a seed of well-meaning intent (representing the community) which hopefully can't be coopted easily even if cloned by adversaries.

But I'm bad at adversarial thinking, I think both because of limited analytical skills and an optimistic bent. We need to think as a group :)

[[counter anti disintermediation]] is a new concept to me, thank you; exploring.

@agora wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter

@flancian I fully wish Flancian attitudes could prevail on positive intent alone. But what I found interesting in what I read of CAD was how bad actors were able to exploit good intentions. e.g. Github centralising the world's source code on the back of an entirely disintermediated tool. The argument being that a more strategic approach may have avoided that.

So there may be some food for thought in counter anti disintermediation for counter anti Flancianism. I will node it a bit more!

@neil very interesting indeed.

I think centralization is just one of a number of possible strategies with competitive advantages for entities working on a certain space. If I look around, I don't think corporations will be able to hold their grip on the internet. We have our own advantages.

@neil in particular, centralized entities tend to build with one pattern in mind: the walled garden, and I think those are local optima -- we can build bridges and siphons and run them for the good of the people and the internet.

@neil but I fully agree that learning from CAD is much in the menu.

@neil [[fission]] is of course in this space, it seems to me, as well as the whole web 3/distributed/serverless movement.


Started noding based on


Interesting how the Agora, although server-based, could be thought as meeting the recommendation in the next-to-last paragraph by virtue of actually being an integration of the user's self hosted notes -- I guess most users host notes on github.com, but migrating off github.com (or at least keeping a freer mirror) is not that hard.

@neil a serverless agora would be ideal though of course, even if it's not currently within my skill set

@vera @trailmarks what would you build this on? [[fission]]?

@flancian I think Agora could *in theory* be used as a tool to centralise. In that it could leverage 'value-adds' and network effects to keep people in one place even though they own their data and can in theory move it.

But I think Agora counters this by being a) libre software; b) showing a desire to be just one of many instances; c) building bridges to easily get data in/out; d) probably more ... these are good counter anti Flancian measures I reckon.

@flancian I find the discussion of centralised/decentralised/distributed really interesting too.

I do like P2P but I'm not sure how far I go with the extreme 'no servers' view of e.g. Kleiner.

There's a clear benefit from something like anagora or micro.blog, providing a service for others who would not be able to set something up themselves. A server for 50 friends is different from a server for 5 million.

Beaker Browser was cool though.

@neil @flancian
It took me years to realize
that while the network became the computer with the rise of crytpographic hashing DHT and other technologies the network became the commons based peer to peer database, which means silos are history. We can build an InterPersonal People centered internet that would promote Open Commons based peer produced, born interoperable software where the participant in the network will benefit.

@trailmarks @neil that sounds lovely!

Gyuri, do you think Trailmarks and Agora users should interop at the protocol (network) level or at the storage layer?

@trailmarks @neil as in, for example, should we set up explicit interop/cross referencing or instead write to the same index or db (ipfs?)

@flancian Paul Frazee's article on Information Civics is a good read on this topic too - github.com/pfrazee/infocivics

@djradon yes. I try to design Flancia so that it's nobody's evil, essentially -- except perhaps that of the [[fascists]] (whenever there is no better choice).

@djradon this is why it's crucial for me not to only build or find an [[agora]], but to try to ensure that the default instance is not controlled by someone thirsty for power.


Sign in to participate in the conversation

A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.