Re: A native internet protocol for social media

hellekin, thats an intresting post - we need more of this #4opens

hamish


On 18/04/2023 09:14, hellekin wrote:
> 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