Social Web: Our Way Or The Highway?

Community
1

I titled this topic 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 :trophy: achievements we find:

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

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

1st stage is the decentralized ecosystem, where SocialHub is part of and only facilitates the FEP process, which is the 2nd stage. The FEP informs the W3C who cherry-pick both from the FEP and from the ecosystem. The ecosystem either participates in the FEP or the W3C or both. Only the W3C gives formal guidance. FEP and ecosystem have mixed informative/formal practices

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

And here we start bumping into problems and areas where we :muscle: 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 :two_hearts:
  • 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?  :speaking_head: 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.
3 Likes
3

A post was split to a new topic: Poll: How should SocialHub be scoped → AS/AP or Social Web?

5

4 posts were split to a new topic: SocialCG should consult SocialHub before appropriating tasks

8

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: SocialCG should consult SocialHub before appropriating tasks

10

An on-topic question to @devnull @bumblefudge and @trwnh … you are all very active in AS/AP including the FEP’s. Can we sign any of you up as FEP facilitator to help @silverpill with the work?

11

TBH, I would have already volunteered if I had the bandwidth or funding to do it well. I am currently running a similar community venue that runs out of grant funding soon. But I’ll consider it if it falls within scope for any grants I can secure?

1 Like
12

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

1 Like
13

I think that @silverpill might answer best. But there should be no conflicts of interest, as this does not involve value judgments. PR reviews involve checking whether the FEP procedures are followed. There are a number of manual tasks, but some tasks have already been automated to an extent by earlier work of @silverpill and @helge.

14

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.

5 Likes
15

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.

2 Likes
16

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

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.

5 Likes
17

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! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

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.