I wonder if the purity of self-hosting everything goes a little too far.
I think perhaps my preferred middle ground would be ownership of data, and remunerating orgs I like to administer apps that operate on that data.
@neil I like the idea of co-ops where you have agency as part of the org which manages your data.
Not sure if theres any real good examples of this, where most/many user-owners are somewhat actively involved in the running and/or governance of the service.
#socialcoop has been an interesting project. Lots of engagement/excitement early on. Then 'the crisis', following which there was a massive disengagement & many people left. Nice to see ever more efforts to get people more involved.
I've seen various projects try, not sure if any have discovered the magic that leads to high(ish?) levels of engagement.
Its great to be able to self host. But get feels that the ideas that drive it as an ultimate target are tied up with the values that have driven ever greater individualisation and atomisation in our societies. Not a great goal
I get it that many that 'self host' also expand this to family & friends, which is definitely moving, in what I feel, is a healthier direction
@dazinism Yes agreed. I think the pendulum could swing too far back in revolt against big platforms.
Though I do see some sense in the 'no servers no admins' P2P ideal too, from the perspective of agency and anti-authoritarianism.
I suppose if your servers and admins are part of the collective, then their existence is less of an issue.
I guess agency + community should be the goals, and the infrastructure that best enables that more of an implementation detail.
@neil yeah, not hung up on specific architecture or tech stack. Just very open to stuff, as you mention, that increases agency & community **at all layers of the tech stack**
The stack is so complex that theres all kinds of organisations that have to be trusted when we use computers. Fixating on eliminating, or taking personal control of, a layer of the stack reduces the number of parties that need trust. But still so many more
Also there are cases where theres benefits to keeping that layer
@neil I've ended up on either side of the purity argument. I've initiated projects to used closed-source capitalist products, and also left projects (partly) because they wouldn't move to open source.
the approach I would like to see more of is making explicit compromises, to say "we *would* use the cool open source one if....".
to be able more clearly seperate values and practicalities. over time the practicalities can change so it becomes viable to align closer to values.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!