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