I have lot of sympathy for Matt Slater's arguments for Protocol Cooperativism. This is essentially the songbook I was singing from, since the late 90s, and throughout my time working on the Aotearoa localizations of and . But in hindsight, those songs were naive. As Matt points out within his own essay, capitalists have already figured out ways to dominate open networks based on open protocols (eg Microsoft's "embrace, extend, extinguish"). Ownership matters.

@strypey Don't you think "embrace, extend, extinguish" depends on us accepting their propositions though? (eg. using Github), maybe out of convenience, cost saving, or even necessity (eg. using it to survive capitalism).

Hence we need networked alternatives (making them protocol-based means we can achieve 'network effects' and scale cooperatively, rather than each small initiative having to fight that battle again and again) that are not only convenient and attractive to use, but which also help us thrive economically (something @matslats and others have been working on for a long time)...

@mayel @matslats to be clear, I'm not arguing against open protocols. I'm saying they've proved to be necessary but not sufficient. Open protocols alone haven't stopped dominating chat (gOgle started out embracing and extending XMPP, then effectively extinguished it by de-federating and switching to WebRTC). They haven't stopped them dominating the web (embracing and extending HTTP on both server and client ends). There are numerous other examples.

@mayel @matslats
What allows them to dominate? They have financial resources smaller players don't. For example, they can pay as many fulltime staff as they need to make their products and services more attractive than more freedom-respecting alternatives. They can get their PR posters slapped up all over major cities. Protocols + cooperatives offers us a way to compete with this. The point of Platform Cooperativism is that neither can do it alone, which is what Matt's essay seems to miss.

@strypey @mayel @matslats

I don't know if Matt will see or respond to this here, but I don't think he disagrees with that.

@bhaugen @strypey @mayel I'm no expert, just looking for the most achievable way to connect all the diverse social movements. ActivityPub seems like the right wagon to ride at the moment.

@bhaugen @mayel apologies @matslats , when I read the second part of your essay more carefully I see you are essentially making same argument I am making here. I guess it comes down to our understanding of the rather loose term "platform". To me the net, the web, and the fediverse (everything connected via ActivityPub) are platforms. You seem to use it in your essay to specifically describe centralized infrastructures.

@strypey @mayel @matslats
> You seem to use it in your essay to specifically describe centralized infrastructures.

That's the way I use it, too. My understanding of platform cooperatives is they are centralized infrastructures owned by a cooperative, that is, owned by their participants depending on the type of co-op.

Is any of that wrong? I am always ready to be wrong and learn something new.

@strypey @mayel @matslats

P.S. a platform owned by a co-op is a lot better than one that is not.

@bhaugen @mayel @matslats your definition is becoming a common one, and is perfectly valid. But "platform" is a fairly loose term. People have talked about OS as platforms (eg "the GNU/Linux platform), network protocols as platforms (the web as a platform), and so on. It's one of those terms that needs to be defined for the purpose of any given discussion, so we don't end up talking past each other ;)

@strypey @mayel @matslats
I was assuming the context was platform cooperatives, and asking if I was using the term the way the platform co-op people do.

@strypey @mayel @matslats

If you consider a platform cooperative to be a centralized and hosted system owned, operated, and governed by a cooperative, it is easy to tell what the cooperative owns.

If it's an open protocol, how does a cooperative own it?

A cooperative could form to create and maintain software that runs the protocol. SSB is starting more than one organization like that

Or cooperative could form to host sites that run the protocol, for example, social.coop. (part 1 of 2)

@strypey @mayel @matslats

(Part 2 of 2)

Many cooperatives could form to develop various apps that us the protocol.

And also many cooperatives could use the protocol, apps, etc, to conduct their cooperative activities.

@bhaugen @matslats @strypey

All true, but if most platform coops run #FOSS, especially if protocol-based, isn't the real thing they own their existence as a (hopefully) functional group of people? with its associated "brand", awareness, trust, etc...

@bhaugen @mayel @matslats @strypey

Where does infrastucture come in? The spaces we create/cooperatively run, in which we and others generate content and build relationships, and the hardware/software construction and maintenance? (e.g., hosting and admin/maint of an instance)

There is also the question of basic infrastructure, like broadband coops or local networks.

@strypey @bhaugen @mayel @matslats

Yes! So how do we play a part in the commonsing and cooperativizing of all of this?

@Matt_Noyes @bhaugen @mayel @matslats 1. support/ join existing commons and cooperatives, and help start new projects where there are gaps. 2. help theorize and map the space so we can understand how the various initiatives can join up and support each other, and where the gaps are.

@strypey @bhaugen @mayel @matslats

Point 1 seems like a good general policy for social.coop to adopt (there has been similar discussion in the past). Point 2 we have to work on and share.

@bhaugen Capitalists centralising everything and always competing for profit rather than collaborating can never get cooperativism right. Free Software is anathema to their process, even if they benefit from it, there's a fundamental philosophical impossibility in being for capital and being for collaboration at the same time. US Liberals really need to make their minds up.

@strypey @mayel @matslats

@h @matslats @mayel @strypey @bhaugen

this isn’t even true. cooperation is valuable from a capitalist standpoint even if monopolist corporations tend to have a structural blindness to it.

@xj9 I wasn't even talking to you. I already know that you always have everything completely backwards, you don't need to remind me. For some reason I forgot to block you from this account too, just stay away from me.

@xj9 @h

That could have become an interesting sidelight on this thread if y'all were a little more nuanced and not so absolute and did not feel like you had to have a debate. For example, here are a bunch of nuances on collaboration in capitalism, which does happen, but is often crippled by competition:
academia.edu/10252910/The_unea
(warning: very dry and academic, you'll get the picture quickly though)

@bhaugen @h

i’ve had interesting discussions with h in the past. but he decided that i’m too... something to keep talking to. i’ve been persuaded to change my position many times in fediverse discussions, but it wouldn’t be honest if i didn’t present my position with the strongest argument that i can make.

some people don’t like it and that’s fine.

@xj9 @h @matslats @mayel @bhaugen in order to have a productive discussion about "capitalism" or "capitalists", you first need to define these terms for the sake of the discussion. Otherwise all that can happen is people talking past each other based on differing assumptions about what aspects of the real world these terms are describing. I wrote about this in the wake of Occupy, see:
coactivate.org/projects/disint

@bhaugen @mayel @matslats again, I think the whole platform cooperativism thing is too new to assume a single, common definition of "platform". If you look at Uber, AirBnB, or TaskRabbit, I would argue that software or server infrastructure are not the platform, but rather the database of vendors and customers, and the things that make them trust it (mainly reputation and payment systems). So if these are decentralized via a protocol as @matslats proposes, I'd argue it's still a "platform".

@bhaugen @mayel @matslats to explain what I mean by analogy, take cash as a platform for transactions. You can't do cash without paper or metal, but the materials are not the guts of the platform. Rather it's the reputation and security systems (eg state backing, watermarks, anti-forgery enforcement) that make cash a platform people trust and use. You can't set up a cooperative to replace cash as a platform just by printing bills or minting coins (something cryptobugs often don't seem to get)

@strypey They can afford to produce as many loss leaders as they want to leave every small shop out of business.

@mayel @matslats

@h @mayel @matslats true, but one effective way to compete with that is a pitch based on shared values. I envision the digital equivalent of organic grocery cooperatives computing with corporate supermarkets or independent coffee house cooperatives competing with corporate cafe chains

@strypey I get you, and your idea fits in nicely with the concept of 'exodus' that @KevinCarson1 has written about extensively. The problem I see is that most cooperativists (especially in fiercely capitalist countries) are unaware of their own impossibility of being truly cooperative honouring all 7 ideals and pursuing capitalist objectives at the same time. 9 out of 10 adopt the cooperative form, but functionally they behave like a typical corp in everything but name.

@mayel @matslats

@strypey Most actually existing cooperatives still behave under the logic of competition and the capitalist production mode by default. It's not enough to say "we're a cooperative, we're good people". We should rather ask "Is this org really fostering collaboration and helpibg to produce common wealth beyond itself?". If the answer is "Yes, but..." then that really means "No".

@KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@strypey Apart from Kevin"s work, I'd recommend taking a look at @Gin 's initial work (beyond labels and branding) on the ways that genuinely progressive organisations aware of the limitations of capital can tell who are compatible organisations to cooperate with. (And which aren't) Hopefully a first deliverable of many.
emo.world/2018/09/27/no-profit

@KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@h
"we're a cooperative, we're good people".
IMO it's not about 'values' - whatever they may be . . some kinda idealist arm-waving? Rather, actual relations of production, actual material articulation of forces of production? What joins up with what, in practice? Eg, are there commons being curated and stewarded, or just more consumers and workers seeking comfort? Is laying so much stress on 'values' one of the weakest things about coops?
@strypey @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@mike_hales For someone like myself coming from a Free Software background at Groklaw and the Ruby community, and having been part of a few cooperatives, I feel confident in stating that cooperatives are lacking binding contracts like the GPL, and very few coops have the knowledge and inclination to bind themselves to such a common social contract (and other byproducts like friction reduction)
@strypey @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@mike_hales In that particular sense, I think analogue coops have a long way to go before they can become nearly as effective as the Free Software movement has been in such a comparatively short time span. Of course, merging the Free Software ethos with cooperative economic production would be even better. The problem is few people really grok both camps. @strypey @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@mike_hales @h @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats don't underrate the importance of values. The Four Freedoms are an articulation of a set of values. So are the permaculture ethics. They summarize, in simple terms, how production will and won't be done by an organisation that shares them. They allow for informal coordination of effort on a much larger scale than any set of formal MoUs.

@mike_hales @h @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats
For example, I can buy certified organic food and have reasonable confidence that I am supporting growers using sustainable practices, without personally inspecting their farms. That's possible because the word "organic" stands in for a shared set of values around sustainable land use. It's not an ironclad guarantee, but it's a big improvement on just buying anything and hoping for the best.

@strypey
'Values' . . I'm sensitive to the power of stories & the need to do storytelling skilfully. Meme-wise, words press buttons! I just don't believe there are such things as values. That's just a story we tell, a meme (which clearly is rather powerful for many people).

Too much ontologising here!

'Organic' I see as a hint of certain actual practices, with particular material relationships & consequences. A one-word story that I might choose to believe.
@h @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@mike_hales I think we substantially agree here. But I feel obliged to point out that if values don't exist, neither does production. They're both typed of storytelling about systems of physical interactions between humans and resources. Values are stories about means, productions are stories about ends.
@h @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@strypey There is no permaculture binding document. I don't underestimate shared values, and of course the GPL is a clever hack that encodes primary values, but the fact remains that there is nothing like a GPL for coops. As it's plain for all to see on the greatest public stage the world has ever seen, even the strongest foundations based on admirable values can be shaken and subverted. It's good, maybe. Other ways can be better.
@mike_hales @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@h true, but the ethics (earth care, people care, fair share), as defined by Mollison and Holmgren, are a core part of the curriculum for any Permaculture Design Certificate course, and pretty universally accepted by permies worldwide. The GPL is a strategy for protecting the freedoms valueed by the software freedom movement. The PDC curriculum serves a similar function for the permaculture movement.
@mike_hales @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@h are you envisioning some kind of legal license that forces coops to follow the coop principles (which encode the coop values)? If so, how do you see this working in practice? I worry that using the stick instead of the carrot risks alienating people, with the result that they abandon the coop form. Might it be more effective to build relationships, and educate people about the coop principles and how their coops might better enact them?
@mike_hales @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@strypey There are other ways with plenty of eventual carrot and no stick. In my experience convenience and inconvenience work better than stick and carrot.
Expecting vastly different people from various backgrounds to magically behave in predictable ways without agreeing on binding contracts is like expecting a herd of pre-schoolers to play a symphony without previous training.

@mike_hales @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@h and yet the permaculture movement expects exactly this with the way PDCs are organized, and AFAIK it's exactly what happens. Also, the existence of the GPL doesn't force anyone to license their software under it (unless its derived from existing software that is), and yet thousands of people do.
@mike_hales @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@h I do agree with you that mutually enforceable agreements have a place, in business arrangements with low tolerance for unpredictable behaviour (eg service level agreements for hosted software). But this is not about enforcement of *values*, but enforcement of *agreed actions*. I wonder if you might be conflating two quite different strategic uses of the law.
@mike_hales @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@strypey The GPL is more than a strategy, it's also a legally binding document. I'd personally prefer laws being crafted in a consensual process by an horizontally organised federation, rather than a hack derived from the Berne Convention signed by some UN member states.
But one binding document is far better than none at all, and in the case of the GPL it has proven itself, in fact, to be admirably solid.

@mike_hales @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@h sure, but the is a defensive tool. It's function is not to enforce compliance with the values within the software freedom movement, but rather as a preventative measure against the work of free code hackers being abused by anti-social outsiders.
@mike_hales @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@strypey It's externally binding as much as it's self-binding and internally binding.

@mike_hales @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@h I don't agree, but this sentence probably summarizes a much larger set of thoughts, which I could easily be misreading. Can you expand on this? @mike_hales @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats

@strypey @mayel @matslats

While they are not sufficient, I would emphasize a bit more that open protocols are necessary.

I don't think it is possible to get where I think we want to go using one platform where everybody needs to use the same software and host. Doesn't allow enuf room for variation or local creativity. And the singular platform will always get too big to understand.

But boots on the ground organizing live people are also necessary and more important.

@bhaugen @mayel @matslats sure, see the second post that followed the one you replied to :)

@strypey

Have capitalists dominated the fediverse yet?

Or SSB?

@bhaugen
> Have capitalists dominated the fediverse yet?

Not yet, but what's stopping them? History makes it clear that relying on the decentralized nature of the protocol is not enough. If we don't want the going the way of email (vast majority of users on a handful of ), we need ways to ensure that both software development and the deployment of non-capitalist instances are economically sustainable. The point I was making was that is one way to do that.

@strypey

Economic sustainability in a capitalist economy is tricky. Cooperatives find themselves immersed in capitalism and then infected, maybe in the first place by needing to get money from either capitalist markets or competing for investments or grants, which are never as close to "free money" as they might seem.

It's all tradeoffs and good strategy and good tactical maneuvers.

@strypey

> It's all tradeoffs and good strategy and good tactical maneuvers.

And collective and personal mental transformation...

@bhaugen this reminds me of the discussion that started here:
mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/101

... where I started out disagreeing with @matslats and then realized we were both arguing for the same thing ;-)
@Matt_Noyes

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

This Mastodon instance is provided gratis by the NZ Open Source Society for the benefit of everyone interested in their own freedom and sharing with others. Hosting is generously provided by Catalyst Cloud right here in Aotearoa New Zealand.