Re: A native internet protocol for social media

On 4/15/23 21:11, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> 
> It is important to note that throwing cash might not be the most precise 
> term to use in this context. In the case of Nostr, Jack Dorsey 
> generously donated $250,000 to the community, which has been 
> thoughtfully distributed to various projects.

Excuse me, Melvin, but "generously donated" might not be a good term 
either, since we're talking about a billionaire who is trying to create 
his own competitive protocol, while luring free software into carrying 
his flame. To me it looks like communication at worst and smart probing 
alternatives at best. Investment, not 'generous donation'.

> Exceptional projects have 
> received approximately $1,000 each. This amount might be comparatively 
> lower than the funding provided by NLNet.
>

The funding provided by the NGI Zero, which I am a part of, as mentor on 
Discovery, PET, Core and Entrust, ranges from 2500 € to 200,000 € 
(Disco, PET) or up to 500,000 € (Core, Entrust, Review...) for a single 
software community. The 'sweet spot' is at about 30,000 € and previous 
recipients with successful grants usually apply for 50,000 €.

This financial windfall comes from public money, from European funds 
operated by the European Commission by way of Horizon 2020 programme 
(Disco, PET), and the new Horizon Europe programme (Core, Entrust, 
Review, and others). Each project has about 6-7 millions euros to 
distribute over 3-4 years.

This is way less than the private money Dorsey can provide, and only a 
drop in the EC budget, especially if you consider 'defense' investment 
over the same period. So in any case, NGI money (NGI Zero is the most 
successful and widely known cascading funding scheme for free software 
in Europe, but there are others) remains vastly inferior to what Dorsey 
can provide, and vastly insufficient to make a lasting infrastructure 
for decentralized social media.

Compare with a yearly donation of one million dollars to Signal, and 
maybe other protocols, which costs absolutely nothing to Dorsey given 
that it taps into the interest rates of his fortune, and you have a 
picture of future decentralized social media in the hands of a 
billionaire, not much different from the current situation, maybe it's 
soft power and not entirely alt-right like the X puppeteer who plays God.

> The Nostr community of builders serves as an impressive example of FLOSS 
> innovation. With new projects emerging daily, swift bug resolutions, and 
> the rapid development of new client standards, it showcases a dynamic 
> and responsive environment. In contrast, some Fediverse protocols might 
> experience a slower pace in addressing critical issues, with open 
> important issues lasting 6+ years
> 

Maybe Jack could have solved it from the start by pouring a $10K bounty 
per issue. I'm pretty sure a lot of people would have applied to the 
issue kill list and gone through it like a knife through soft butter.

Sometimes it's better to leave things dangling and start over, but 
then... Why? Oh yes, the best will emerge from competition, in the 
flawless light of the free market, as we've all seen before, repeatedly.

When you don't have money, you must take time to do things. And 
sometimes it makes sense to take time, because it enables cooperation, 
it allows more voices to be heard, to tackle issues in depth, to explore 
different paths, and empower the community. I think this is what happens 
with the ActivityPub developer community working up Federation 
Enhancement Proposals (FEP) process.

If SWIG would receive one million dollars a year, certainly the issues 
would vanish and more issues would come up. A larger community is harder 
to fund because of the variety of focuses it holds. Funding some parts 
can effectively make it more difficult for other parts to thrive, and 
become a strategic burden for a cooperative community. We should not be 
naive about funding: those with more capital end up building more 
influence. Decentralized social media are not about bells and whistles, 
but about means of safe communication and effective coordination.

Picking names does not make ideas succeed. It only builds more figure 
heads that encourage followership and more of the same. Embracing ideas 
would instead ensure a diversity of small programs working together... 
I've heard this before.

==
hk

Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2023 08:14:21 UTC