引用) 『プラットフォームが生まれ、成長し、支配し、滅びるまで』コリイ・ドクトロウ(Tiktok's enshittification), "How to fix the internet"

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

This is the single most important difference between ActivityPub-based Fediverse services like Mastodon and the silos like Twitter and Facebook – you can quit a Fediverse server and set up somewhere else, and still maintain your follows and followers:

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

In the absence of interoperability, network effects impose their own switching cost: the "collective action problem" of deciding when to leave and where to go. If you depend on the people you follow and who follow you – for emotional support, for your livelihood, for community –

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

then the extreme difficulty of convincing everyone to leave at the same time and go somewhere else means that you can be enticed into staying on a service that you no longer enjoy.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

The platforms can shift the surpluses away from you, provided that doing so makes you less miserable than abandoning your friends or fans or customers would. A system can never truly stabilize. This is why utopias are nonsense:

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

Dystopia is when things go wrong, and nothing can be done about it. Anything that can't go on forever will eventually stop.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

The Fediverse is designed to keep switching costs as low as possible, by enshrining the 📌"right of exit" into the technical architecture of the system. The ability to leave a service without paying a price is the best defense we have against the scourge of enshittification.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

27/ └ What it might be like to use social media in the near future, after big companies like Facebook were legally required to open up their walled gardens and let their users talk to anyone online, not just other Facebook users. eff.org/files/2022/09/…

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

Facebook got big thanks to network effects. It stays big thanks to “switching costs.” “Switching costs.” That’s another phrase from our friends in the economics profession. It means everything you have to give up when you stop using a product or service.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

If you quit Facebook, you’ll lose the ability to keep up with the people that brought you there in the first place: family, communities, customers. When there’s interoperability, digital technology users rarely face high switching costs.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

The ease of making something new that plugs into whatever you’re dissatisfied with now has meant that you can move from one product or service to another, with hardly a break.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

There’s no technical reason that leaving Facebook should involve high switching costs. From a technical perspective, building a tool that lets you see the posts of people you leave behind when you quit Facebook, and lets them see your posts, is completely possible.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

If only there was a way to cut through Facebook’s legal thicket, to blast a door in the walled garden, and let Facebook’s dissatisfied users escape without forcing them to surrender their social connections on the way out. twitter.com/cctvidiots/sta…

CCTV IDIOTS @cctvidiots

And what, so it was possible? 😂 pic.twitter.com/qInXNvYPzh

2023-04-17 16:10:46

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

If only there was a way to make sure that Facebook had users - not hostages. There is a way. More than one, in fact. Here’s the first way: We could reform all those laws that Facebook and other tech giants use to block interoperability, cleaning up our copyright, patent,

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

contract and cybersecurity laws to make sure they don’t interfere with interoperability and lower switching costs. That’s a great idea, but it’s a long haul. Changing one law is hard. Changing many laws? That’s very hard.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

But there’s another way. We can pass a new law: an interoperability law, a law that tells big tech companies like Facebook that they have to make it easy for interoperators to plug into their systems, freeing those users they hold hostage.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

The ACCESS Act, a proposal in the US, will require the largest tech companies to open up an API—that’s one of those “Application Programming Interfaces” that make life easier for programmers trying to talk to the service—and then give access to startups, co-ops, tinkerers,

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

and nonprofits that want to offer alternatives to Big Tech’s social networks. A law in the EU, the Digital Markets Act, sets up a similar framework. It only covers messaging apps—probably the more difficult place to start—but it could be expanded to include social networks.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

We’ll present four scenarios designed to help you get a feel for what life might be like in a future where people who grow dissatisfied with Facebook can leave without paying a high switching cost.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

Scenario 1: Leaving Facebook Say someone you trust—your church, your local Kiwanis club, your hackerspace, or a startup in your town—has set up a new service. They downloaded some free/open source software, got some server space, and now you’ve got an account with them.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

Maybe it’s free and run by volunteers, maybe you pay a monthly subscription fee, or maybe it’s got ads. As your Facebook friends give permission to have their messages and posts forwarded to you on User Republic, those messages will show up in your inbox

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

and those posts will show up in your feed. They’ll be mixed with messages from other users of User Republic, and users on other services that connect to Facebook can message you too.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

User Republic will have its own algorithm for deciding what goes where in your feed, and it will have its own house rules about what content is allowed, what content is banned, and what content is subject to being flagged or tagged by moderators.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

Scenario 2: Blocking undesirable content from another federated server That whole federation of services can contribute to your feed and your inbox. The people running User Republic can block some of those services based on their own house rules.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

Scenario 3: Blocking objectionable materials that Facebook permits The whole federation of services doesn’t need to agree to a single definition of “harassment,” for example. If there’s a server whose users engage in what they think of as “vigorous discussion”

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

but you and your friends consider “harassment,” you can block that server. If you were one of the millions of Facebook users who thought Donald Trump should be banned for posting “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,”

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

you could use a server where he was instantly blocked for that post, rather than waiting months for Facebook to reverse its own decision to leave Trump’s account active.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

Scenario 4: Posting material that Facebook prohibits Federated servers can enforce their own rules based on filters, user-reporting, user voting, or volunteer or paid moderation. That could include allowing links that are banned on Facebook.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

That’s the point of devolving moderation to communities themselves: you get to choose which service you use based on what you want to see, and what you don’t want to see, and you get to leave if you and your service don’t see eye to eye.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

Conclusion There’s something seriously wrong with a technological world where billions of users feel they must use a service despite not liking or trusting it.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

Facebook doesn’t just need to work well, it has to fail well, too. Today, people who aren’t served by Facebook’s rules and rulings have two choices: like it, or lump it. They can stay on Facebook, or they can go into exile from their Facebook communities.

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

Interoperability creates a third choice: go somewhere else, but keep your relationships alive. That’s a truly social media design, not commercial surveillance or the social norms of a small group of executives in a Silicon Valley board-room. (END🧵

花びんに水を☘ @chokusenhikaeme

eff.org/interoperablef… pic.twitter.com/lycB9HZUIX

拡大

拡大