SocialHub: Made by you

[aschrijver]

Originally titled “Social Web: Our way or the highway” in a word-play on the US expression “My way or the highway” to indicate a choice that is in front of us:

1. Either the Commons steps up and keeps having a say in the future of Fediverse / Social Web.
2. Or commercial forces will lead us towards Big Fedi™. We go the way of the corporate web.

We are firmly on trajectory 2) as the Commons hasn’t been able to self-organize in any significant way. Our ecosystem is marked by fragmentation and individualism with only little collaboration and cross-pollination that leads to actual evolution of the technology foundations upon which we all stand.

Is that sad? Opinions vary, and there are those who think 2) is the best and only way forward. One thing is certain: Standing on the sidelines and that trajectory, a corporate takeover, is what we’ll get.

What happens in fedi’s future depends on our collective (in)action…

Social Web and SocialHub

Given recent developments I will pose some definitions:

Social networking: Any direct and indirect social interactions between people.

Social web: How we shape social networking online, given the technologies available to us.

Social hub: A developer portal where any person is welcome to help evolve the social web.

So what’s the status now? Among our achievements we find:

 We have a grassroots, decentralized open ecosystem, with a bottom-up 3-stage dev process.

 We have a FEP process where collected 73 (!!) Fediverse Enhancement Proposals.

I am particularly proud of where we collectively got the FEP process.

And here we start bumping into problems and areas where we must improve:

• We got a basic discussion forum going here, but not in any way a community of action.
• We need more people in staff roles, as moderator, admin, or in the well-being team.
• We need more people facilitating the FEP process, and join heroes like @silverpill
• We need more input and feedback on improvements to make to the various processes.
• We need focus on streamlining collaboration across the 3-stages of the ecosystem.
• And then we need hands raised and people rolling up their sleeves to do actual work.

Do you see a role for the commons in the social web?  Don’t be silent. Participate!

• For AS/AP we have a list of improvements where you can give your input too.
• Volunteer yourself below and supply more suggestions for improvement.

[WisTex]

It was inevitable that big players with big pockets come to play with decentralized social media. It’s very similar to how they embraced email and the web. It’s just good technology that has many use cases.

The most important thing is that independents, individuals, and small players don’t get squeezed out.

For the social web and fediverse to grow (I consider those to be two different things, by the way), I think that we would need the following:

• Passionate individuals who are trailblazers.
• Multiple organizations the represent different interests, including grassroots, independents, and small players.
• A willingness to collaborate to create the best outcome possible, and preserve individual choice and agency.
• Tools that facilitate collaboration.

Money and attention flooding into the social web isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Money is just a tool that can be used for good or bad. And attention will help the social web and fediverse become large enough for the network effect to activate (i.e. the network is so large that people want and need to be on that network).

The pitfall we have to avoid is:

• Allowing any one organization or individual to control the social web.

So an organization that represents the commons would be ideal. What would be better is multiple organizations working together so there is no concentration of power & influence.

[silverpill]

@trwnh

it depends on what exactly this role involves and whether it would create any conflicts of interest as the author of several feps.

@aschrijver

I think that @silverpill might answer best. But there should be no conflicts of interest, as this does not involve value judgments.

I think prior experience with FEPs is a plus. Facilitators also participate in FEP Process Governance, so it is nice to have people with some skin in the game.

[SeriousFun01]

Ha, posing a binary choice immediately triggers in me the “is there a third way?” reflex

Lets face facts: after a decade++ trying, the “Commons” has failed to deliver a “social web”. Its a niche endeavor, by motivated and talented individuals. It has provided multiple proofs-of-principle that alternative designs are possible. This is major. But it failed to resolve the multiple technical, user functionality and economic viability challenges that would turn a page and create the new online universe that we know is possible and we (by a small margin) deserve.

Now, the other side of our binary choice is supposed to be “Big Fedi”. Why is that? Well because any and all developments in the digital landscape are completely dominated by these two-three “tech” entities. So you have a niche with zero funds (the “Commons”), competing with a niche with infinite funds (“Big Tech”). Who is missing? 99% of society and the economy.

The historical “third way” was supposed to be able to reconcile conflicting social forces. This famously failed when it simply became a fig leaf for one or other interest. But in this battle we have the problem that the majority of society is not involved at all. There are way more commercial interests in the world than adtech. Are they part of the equation? There is the massive and complex public sector which - formally at least - represents “the Commons”, are they part of the equation?

My humble opinion (not a figure of speech - I wish it could be a bit more than that) is that nothing good will come out while these vast interests remain silent and absent from the debates and design choices of the “redecentralized web” or whatever we might want to call it. For a long as the bulk of society acts as technology “takers”, just using whatever is readily available, big fedi is inevitable as they are the only ones with the resources to deliver.

Is there a precedent, some sort of blueprint to follow? Alas, no. The best (albeit still modest) example would probably be the flourishing of Linux itself. It is in any case the crucial building block of that desired new landscape. So learnings about how commercial interests of various types, the public sector etc have helped or hindered the adoption of Linux might be useful. After all, with Linux NAS systems or low-cost “cloud” providers for small businesses that run suitable server software we know that the fediverse / social web could change literally at the push of a button.

[aschrijver]

@SeriousFun01

Ha, posing a binary choice immediately triggers in me the “is there a third way?” reflex

Lets face facts: after a decade++ trying, the “Commons” has failed to deliver a “social web”.

I just gave a related reaction to the binary choice. As for the commons, and in this AS/AP case, I sadly agree with you. My spending of yet more time spinning up the pinned discussion threads, is a bit against my better judgment, against hard lessons-learned. At least, I can honestly say I did my part trying.

Yet people may always surprise us, by stepping up to the plate, right here!

Other than that a good discussion forum also has its value, and merits. If that is the best we can get, I am happy with that too. In combination with the FEP Process, I have to say, as that is the current major achievement of SocialHub. But the FEP is fragile. Started by @cjs and @pukkamustard, both no longer active in AS/AP for a long while, then I moved it to Codeberg. It has a whole bunch of facilitators, but in practice it is only @silverpill that keeps it going.

[hamishcampbell]

Agen, this is a pined post that pushes us in a way that I can’t actually engage with. And let’s not start down this path please The victimhood narrative needs composting – Hamish Campbell most of us in this space have purcarus lives and fighting the pillars that support this world and thus ourselves. We can agree this is a mess, let’s focus on composting this, not thoughing shit at each other please.

How could this pined post be done in a way that would make sense to people like me, is likely worthwhile thinking about?

Monarchy, oligarchy and finally long at the tail democracy.

---

There’s a pervasive and damaging cycle in activist and alternative communities that we need to recognize and break, the victimhood narrative. This is not about dismissing genuine struggles or the real problems we face (and let’s be clear, we all have these in abundance on alternative paths). What I’m talking about is the deliberate use of victimhood as a tactic, a card played to push an agenda or gain sympathy, often at the expense of collective progress.

When someone plays the victim card, it sets off a feedback loop. Others pick up on this narrative, and whether they mean to or not, they reinforce it. Before long, the person who played the card becomes trapped in their own creation. They become victims of the very narrative they set in motion. Those who latch onto this story to push their own agendas also fall into the trap, ultimately damaging the causes they claim to support.

This tactic does more harm than good. It doesn’t address the actual issues we’re facing; instead, it creates a toxic distraction that undermines real work that we need to do. By focusing on the victim narrative, we lose sight of the bigger picture, the subjects we should be addressing with urgency and clarity.

Let’s stop and think. Let’s step away from this destructive loop. We need to be clear about the real issues and not allow this negative narrative to cloud our judgment and derail our efforts.

Please, don’t reinforce this mess.

On the other hand, there are real victims, but these people aren’t playing card games, recognizing the difference should not be so hard for people.

https://hamishcampbell.com/the-victim-card-in-activism/

[bashrc]

I call this “competitive oppression” and it’s like The Four Yorkshiremen sketch, or playing Top Trumps where each card has scores for multiple axes of oppression. And I agree that the desire to beat others by slamming down the most oppressed card, dismissing others with lesser or different oppression scores does not help.

[aschrijver]

This was pinned as it was calling for volunteers.

[strypey]

@bashrc

I agree that the desire to beat others by slamming down the most oppressed card, dismissing others with lesser or different oppression scores does not help.

Agreed. Even worse is the tactic of grabbing that card off the people who are actually oppressed, speaking on their behalf, and using that card as a wedge to push unrelated agendas. This is a serious problem in contemporary politics, and makes social movement institutions very vulnerable to bad faith disruption.

@aschrijver

But the FEP is fragile. Started by @cjs and @pukkamustard, both no longer active in AS/AP for a long while, then I moved it to Codeberg. It has a whole bunch of facilitators, but in practice it is only @silverpill that keeps it going.

This is deeply concerning. To me the FEP system is the only positive sign that bottom-up fediverse development isn’t going the way of Diaspora.

I’d really like to see the protocol for how the FEP system works standardised by the SocialCG as part of any charter for standards updates. Plus funding for the people charged with facilitating the process, and ensuring the protocol is followed etc.

[trwnh]

@strypey

I’d really like to see the protocol for how the FEP system works standardised by the SocialCG as part of any charter for standards updates

this feels like it would be overreach on the part of the SocialCG, because part of the FEP process is that it’s not part of the W3C. it would be better for them to remain parallel paths. SocialCG resolved to support the FEP process in 2019 but absorbing it or replacing it with something “in-house” takes away a big part of what makes FEPs appealing: that anyone can write one and anyone can adopt one and at no point is there a decree on which FEPs get written and which ones should be adopted. it’s messy consensus but it’s valuable as long as anyone cares to do the work. if SocialCG wants to take FEPs and use them as inputs into their processes then that’s fine.

[jdp23]

Right. And I think the SocialCG understands that!