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

Have capitalists dominated the fediverse yet?

Or SSB?

@bhaugen , like any distributed/ system, is perhaps more structurally resistant to capitalist domination than server-client systems based on publishing stuff to the web. But for many of the same reasons, it's much harder for Jo User to understand and use (and the is already harder than ). I mean, I haven't figured out how to install an SSB client myself yet ;-)

@strypey

ActivityPub will be easier for people to get into than SSB.

But I'm not sure if and how "structurally resistant to capitalist domination" is possible.

Capitalist logic seeps into everything and tries to exploit it. I think the only reason the fediverse and SSB have not been taken over is there is no obvious way to make big money. Yet. If and when somebody finds a way, it will happen.

Culturally resistant might be better...but we'll see, I lost my prophet license last year....

Follow

@bhaugen
> But I'm not sure if and how "structurally resistant to capitalist domination" is possible.

Can you name a distributed net technology that's been used by a corporation for in the same way server/client architectures like the web have? Capitalist domination requires some degree of centralization, so you erect tollgates. Pure networks treat tollgates as damage and route around them.

@strypey @bhaugen If your business model consists of mining data, then p2p is just fine. Take bittorrent and the surveillance services around it for example
@bhaugen
@ckeen @strypey

And Bittorrent is now launching a cryptocurrency (as optional add-on though)

@strypey

Does using a server make it not P2P to you? Even if somebody runs their own personal email server?

How about if I run my own personal ActivityPub (which I do)?

How about if I run my own scuttlebot (which I do)?

@ebel

@bhaugen
> Does using a server make it not P2P to you?

Yes. Peer-to-peer is just that, not client-server-client. It's not about who runs the software, it's a description of the network topology.
@ebel

@strypey @ebel

So the peers here are not people....? Purely technical components?

(Odd to me, but I now understand how you think about it..)

I've seen distributed and decentralized as network topologies, but P2P always about people.

@bhaugen my understanding is the phrase "peer-to-peer" was coined as a description of a network topology, and was later applied to human-to-human by analogy. The were the first folks I came across using it in that way. I could be wrong though.

@ebel

@strypey @ebel

P2PF got it from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yochai_B and they are not really big on it from a network topology perspective.

@strypey @ebel

The P2PF, ironically, is big on FB...they think it is necessary to popularize their message.

@bhaugen yeah, I remember that from when I brought up federated social networks on the group on ;-) I can see the value of a group like having a token "presence" there, to make them discoverable from those outside the choir. But it seems odd to hold their main forum discussions in a FB group, instead of on Loomio or some self-hosted forum system.
@ebel

@strypey

P2PF has several discussion fora, including at least 2 old-skool mailing lists. I don't do FB so I don't have a good comparison of traffic and topics.

@ebel

@bhaugen I don't do FB either (suspended my account almost 10 years ago and never looked back), but I've been told the FB group is very central, and I've seen criticisms of this inconsistency between ends and means in comments on the P2PF blog.
@ebel

@strypey @ebel

Scuttlebutt is client-scuttlebot-scuttlebot-client, with maybe a pub in the mix.

So what is actually peer-to-peer in your definition of network topology?

@bhaugen
> Scuttlebutt is client-scuttlebot-scuttlebot-client, with maybe a pub in the mix.

I don't know that much about Scuttlebutt. You say there "maybe a pub", so they are entirely optional? If so, they are supernodes/ relays, not servers.

@ebel

@bhaugen can you tell me more about the separate of functions between "client" and "scuttlebot"? It could be that the scuttlebots count as servers, which would make SSB a server/client protocol. Or it could be that the scuttlebot is the back-end, and the "client" is the front-end, and together they make a peer in a P2P network.

@ebel

@strypey @ebel

One scuttlebot can server many clients. I use two clients regularly, patchwork and patchbay, and have also experimented with talenet.

People are also working on patchfox, which is scuttlebut from firefox.

The scuttlebot is also a peer in a gossip network.

@strypey yes. But it's federated like how ActivityPub is. We need learn from email

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.