Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
Does any of this work tie into Tim Berners-Lee's current project,
"Solid" and his attempts to help us all "own our own graphs"?
  

    
Adrian: I think one of the interesting consequences of requiring
interoperability (like the EU is starting to do) is that we can get
a decentralized system that's formed by the existing platforms
federating with each other. We don't have to burn them down :-) That
in turn allows new parties to enter and connect to the federated
system, further decentralizing it and providing alternatives, such
as no tracking or no advertising as part of the same Fediverse
network. For me actually the ability for anybody to connect to a
federated network as a peer is more important and interesting than
decentralization itself.

Ari: possibly, but it's early days. There's an upcoming meeting on
the subject:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2023Nov/0001.html
which I believe is open to the public.

(Note that Inrupt -- TBL's company commercializing Solid -- sells to
governments and enterprises, which isn't what I would think of
"owning" "my graph" as an individual.)
  

    
This TechCrunch article discusses Mozilla's commitment to the
Fediverse:
<https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/03/why-mozilla-is-betting-on-a-decentralized-so
cial-networking-future/>

"Mozilla's involvement, says [Mozilla Senior Director of Content
Carolyn] O'Hara, came about because the company looked at the
history of social media over the past decade and didn't like what it
saw.

"'I think that it's a pretty poor track record by existing companies
that are only model motivated by profit and just insane user growth,
and are willing to tolerate and amplify really toxic content because
it looks like engagement,' she says. '[They] aren't just putting
forward the kind of standards that are good for people, but are just
good for their bottom lines.'

"Plus, she adds, consumers are now becoming aware of this, which is
new.

"'Consumers feel that the vibes are off a little bit...these
platforms aren't necessarily working in their best interests, or
satisfying them,' O'Hara points out." 
  

    
Very much agree with the quote from Mozilla: much of the general
public is now aware that big tech has lots of bad impacts. (That was
also one of my points about what's different now in my introductory
comments
https://user.well.com/engaged.cgi?c=inkwell.vue&t=538&r=4&f=3&
W=y ;
there are a few others.)

What the public isn't aware of yet is that technology does not
**have to be** that way. (Even many technologists cannot imagine
this, particularly the younger ones, because they have not seen
alternatives in action.)

One of the big challenges for the Fediverse, and the IndieWeb, is to
get that message out: if you give people choice, and
interoperability, and you let them participate in the construction
and operation of technical systems, these technical systems -- like
the Fediverse where this is all true -- will serve people much
better.

Choice: which server software, which server instance, which mobile
app, which jurisdiction, which moderation policy, which content you
see, ...

Interoperability: open protocols like ActivityPub

Participate: from open-source development to volunteer moderation to
new cooperative governance models like social.coop (where I have my
primary account) Imagine what a Facebook looked like that was
controlled by a cooperative of its users! The downsides would be so
much smaller!

Does everybody need to do that? of course not. But the mere
possibility acts as a correcting influence.
  

    
Mastodon is well known especially after the migration from Twitter.
What are some other less-well-known apps connected to the Fediverse?
  

    
I feel like the problem extends beyond simply access and knowledge.
I see parallels to broadcast media of yore...

Commercial network TV devoted itself to one thing and one thing
only: attracting the most eyeballs for the most time. And they
designed programming exactly to do that, tested extensively in a
vast production and data-gathering machine to achieve that goal. 

Pre-late 1960s, public television was kind of where the Fediverse is
now--working to introduce itself to users, setting up
infrastructure, etc. Eventually tho that was accomplished and there
was PBS, and just a channel flip away from network tv. But the
viewership was by and large small fraction of commercial tv (with a
few exceptions), and that wasn't because it wasn't accessable.

My obvious point is that when large media companies only want to
create addictive experience, they are pretty good at it. Isn't that
a major battle, to try to combat that? Or to perhaps draw people
away to other experiences?
  

    
I like to think that the truly interactive and social character of
the Internet ultimately resists the bright and shiny that attracts
eyeballs to advertisers, despite the aggressive attempts to push it
there. I think the jury's still out on that one. 

Jeff Jarvis helped me understand how early stage we really are in
the Internet era. Print/mass media thinking hasn't diminished much,
but as the world keeps spinning, it will fade. If we survive long
enough, that is.
  

    
> or to perhaps draw people away to other experiences?

Absolutely.  This reminds me of this post (translated by deepl):

https://oisaur.com/@renchap/111262871749892106
"I get the impression that the answer on Twitter right now is
Bluesky code exchange, or incentives to join the network. And I
wonder if this isn't because Bluesky users are still on Twitter,
while the people who have joined Mastodon have completely left the
network, and are no longer helping poor souls migrate?"

> What are some other less-well-known apps connected to the
Fediverse?

There is a wikipedia "Software" section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse#Software

I have only tried micro.blog and wordpress (not the business
upgrade) and have been delighted by both.  I particularly like the
book cataloging integration of micro.blog.  I'm curious about
fediverse adoption rate on wordpress as you have to turn it on.
  

    
Jon: here's a list of the most-often used Fediverse server-side
software and servers: https://fedidb.org/ There are also many
smartphone apps, most using the Mastodon API (so they may also work
with server software that's not Mastodon but implements their API,
like Firefish): https://joinmastodon.org/apps

Ben: agree with your assessment that the Fediverse is still in a
very early stage of technology adoption. But for good things to
happen, and the Fediverse to be successful, it's not necessary that
"public TV" has most viewers instead of commercial TV. Instead, what
we are building here is a network in which everybody can
participate, and can choose who to interact with and who not. Some
people will only interact with "public TV"-style people and servers
and content, and others will do a mix. All of it is possible, with
me, as a user, using the same software so I don't even need to
change the channel.
  

    
Good point. And also I tend to reject the sheer numbers argument—-we
all know sometimes a deeper experience is of great value even if
overall eyeballs numbers are far lower.
  

    
As a Geezer and a complete noob to all this talk here, I would like
to propose a change to the term “Fediverse”
To this Geezer/noob, the term is very off-putting since it smacks of
the something the gubmint has put out there, akin to “FedNow” or
“FedCoin”

I have no idea where this term came from but just getting geezers
and noobs over their hesitation to go there and try this new schtuff
would seem to me, a bridge too far..as per usual, YMMV and just my
two pennies 
Please carry on
  

    
The WELL is mostly closed (except this conference).  In this sense,
it feels like the anti-Fediverse in much the same ways as
centralized social media platforms in many ways.  In any case, there
are very important pros (community, privacy, sense of safety) and
cons (staleness, limited perspective lack of broader influence) to
this closedness.  

In addition, the WELL’s membership is, as far as I’m aware,
generally not particularly growing, which is in direct contrast to
the Fediverse and the broader community.  Again, there are pros
(stability, less extremism) and cons (fewer fresh ideas) to that.

To the experts: in light of these and other realities, how should
The WELL interface with the Fediverse (or not), either to support
bringing discussion in, or disseminating it out?  Or should it stay
entirely out of the fray because it somehow supports virtual
community in a way that the Fediverse does not?   (Note: I don’t
think I believe this but I’m posing the question in hopes of
generating ideas.)  Indeed, there is an unofficial WELL Mastodon
instance — how should that tie into the broader WELL (or not)? 
Beyond potential culture and values clashes, what about the
technical concerns?  Is Mastodon the potential savior of the WELL’s
antiquated and seemingly largely inflexible code base or a bridge to
far to justify the cost to cross the chasm between the two?  What
about other approaches to the Fediverse that the WELL should learn
from either to bring in new ideas or disseminate them?  
  

    
Back in 1993 or so there was a proposal for the WELL to move towards a sort
of federated model (I was one of the advocates for it), the so-called
"Boston-Autsin" model because those cities at the time had strong nuclei of
WELL users, and the basic idea was to foster geographically based WELL
instances that would have some degree of autonomy and also be somehow
fderated with the WELL in Sausalito. There was ENORMOUS opposition to this
idea from a number of people, basically because it would offer the
possibility of hard to reconcile cultural policies (what if Austin had a
different standard for when a user should be banned or what was acceptable
behavior in a conference that had originated in Boston or Sausalito? etc.)
  

    
Not unlike what we see with another example of federation, the
United States.
  

    
(Sean, the Well has an unofficial Mastodon instance, and is moving
towards having an official instance.)
  

    
I think that usability isn't optional and that "they'll like it once
they figure it out" is not a realistic approach to usability. I
expect that the more cognitive load a feature demands for use, the
less it will be used. How many of the development teams for the
servers and apps we're discussing include people who watch user
behavior and optimize their tool for ease of use?
  

    
<mazz>, thank you.  Given the shift of the WELL Mastodon instance to
official status, my questions for the panelists are perhaps even
sharper and more apropos.  How should The WELL and The WELL Mastodon
instance interrelate?  What different purposes or communities should
they serve?  Or should they remain just totally different things,
technically and socially?  If the latter, how does this jive with
when similar conversations taking place both inside and outside the
walled garden?  Again, I'm not drawing conclusive judgment here --
on one hand this means private vs. public conversations and such
conversations could remain separate or could be integrated.  In the
latter case, they could be "migrated" manually.  E.g., someone on
The WELL says, "Hey I see this conversation also happening on the
Fediverse, with a broader community, how about we take this
conversation over there going forward?"  Or perhaps there could be a
more automated technical solution.  Or, then again, to my first
point, perhaps they should always be separate.  Maybe the WELL is a
virtual community first, last, and always, and Mastodon simply is
not.  I'd love our distinguished panelists' perspectives.
  

    
I don’t want to derail the conversation about the fediverse
generally, although if our panelists have suggestions, I don’t want
to shut those down, either. 

Right now, there are no plans to merge our conferences with Mastodon
in ANY way. They’re really different platforms designed for
different uses; it would be like trying to do what we do on Twitter
or Facebook. (The Well has had a Facebook group for years, and we
don’t use it for topical discussions, but for general socializing.)

In any case, the Well-specific discussion is happening in
<mastodon.ind.>, a members-only conference, if you’re curious.
  

    
Years ago, at a Forum One conference on online community, John Coate
(aka <tex>, the WELL's first conference manager) acknowledged an
issue with the title of the conference - which included "Creating
Community." <tex> said that you can't create community. You can
build a platform where a community will (may) form. 

But I think you have to have the right kind of platform for
community to form and sustain. I think this BBS framework we have
with linear discussions organized as topics within "conferences" has
been particularly good at supporting and sustaining community - a
set of people sharing a common history together, getting to know
each other very well, sometimes intimately in this context. I think
that's harder to do in something like Twitter or Bluesky or
Mastodon, because the posts are more scattershot, not quite
conversational, and when there is conversation, it seems pretty
ephemeral.
  

    
The Fediverse and the Independent Web are famously decentralized,
but is there any sort of governance model that applies to either or
both? How can we ensure that these platforms are moderated in a way
that respects freedom of speech and privacy?
  

    
>it somehow supports virtual community in a way that the Fediverse
> does not

Just to be clear for the non-well members reading this discussion,
there are a few key differences between the well and most social media
systems:

- fee for being a member
- no anonymous members
- no ads 
- no datamining of our posts for marketing
  

    
> How many of the development teams for the
servers and apps we're discussing include people who watch user
behavior and optimize their tool for ease of use?

i don't have adequate data to answer that but i'll share my
experience with about 10 months of using https://elk.zone as a
frontend to mastodon.  it generally seems exactly like twitter with
a few exceptions.  first, i generally have to use an email like
address to mention someone (on a different instance than me) rather
than just a username which is additional cognitive load.  second,
there are no advertisements.  otherwise, i often forget i'm on one
or the other.
  

    
Hoping for a response to <45>. I have other questions: 

Indieweb is defined as "a community of independent & personal
websites connected by simple standards, based on the principles of:
owning your domain & using it as your primary identity, publishing
on your own site (optionally syndicating elsewhere), and owning your
data." <https://indieweb.org/IndieWeb>

How well is IndieWeb progressing as an alternative to corporate
centralized web  platforms? To what extent do you have to be tech
savvy to get value from IndieWeb - are the tools accessible to users
with limited understanding of web technology?
  

    
there is a lot in <45> but as far as privacy, i often think about it
in terms of Eve Maler's description as consent.  for example,

https://twitter.com/xmlgrrl/status/753333003368050688
Bold! Privacy is consent. I’d only revise as “…context, control,
choice, and respect”

the article "Is Mastodon Private and Secure? Let’s Take a Look" is a
good overview:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/11/mastodon-private-and-secure-lets-take-lo
ok

one change since this article was published is that Mastodon users
can now opt-in to having their posts searchable.

it seems the biggest privacy issue, and as mentioned in the article,
is that people often have the expectation that direct messages are
private but in reality they can be read by the administrators.  to
address this, there is a proposal by Evan for end-to-end encrypted
messages:

https://evanp.me/2023/05/19/end-to-end-encrypted-messages-over-activitypub/

in the meantime, like many of us do in the indieweb community, one
way to have private conversations in the context of the open web is
to include a link to keybase on our web page.

there was also a discussion at the last fediforum regarding private
groups:

https://fediforum.org/2023-09/session/4-h/

hopefully someone can respond to the governance and freedom of
speech parts of <45>. :)
 
  

    
Re <45> governance:

* in centralized social media we mostly have one governance model:
whatever Zuck says, or whoever runs the respective platform.

* in the Fediverse, we have lots and lots of local foci of
governance, partially overlapping and balancing:

A. interop protocols

  a. the core interop protocol (i.e. ActivityPub at the W3C)
  b. various extension protocols (e.g. Feps)

B. software

  a. Mastodon development
  b. Firefish development
  c. ... all the other server-side software that interoperates
  d. Elk development
  e. IceCubes development
  f. ... all the other mobile app software that interoperates

C. instance operations

  a. System administration, technical operations and configuration
of the software
  b. Moderation
  c. Sign-up policy

So governance in the Fediverse is multi-faceted and locally
controlled on multiple levels and aspects, unlike the centralized
platforms.