activistPnk

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/24727683

The fediverse w/the activitypub API sell itself as being decentralised, but it’s actually just neutral. It merely enables decentralised forums to coexist with centralised venues. The Lemmy implementation in particular does nothing to proactively promote decentralisation or counter concentrations of power.

When the software is not designed to steer toward decentralisation, centralisation persists because the network effect is left uncountered. The current stats prove that a mass majority of users and their activity are subject to the concentrated power of a few, which ultimately singularly falls under the power, oversight, and competency of the biggest walled garden in the world: Cloudflare Inc, in the US.

Calling Lemmy “neutral” is overly generous, in fact. When the stock Lemmy web client is queried for communities, it prioritises the giant centralised communities in top rankings of the search results. It’s no better than Google, where Cloudflare also dominates the top slots in web search results. This exacerbates the network effect by cattle-herding people toward increased centralisation.

Lemmy ranks decentralised communities at the bottom. And in some cases the ranking is so low that it’s out of reach when cross-posting. The cross-post mechanism forces a search for the target community, and that search does not support entry of the address of the community that includes the domain. When the list is so long it exceeds the pulldown window length, it’s out of reach.

Yes, we know centralisation is not their deliberate goal. Lemmy developers fear that newcoming novices would unwittingly post in a ghost town without strategically cross-posting and then become immediately discouraged by minimal engagement, and from there bounce back to Twitter or wherever they came from. But it must be realised that the mass nannied steering they have resorted to has cultivated centralisation that defeats the founding purpose of the fedi.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/24727683

The fediverse w/the activitypub API sell itself as being decentralised, but it’s actually just neutral. It merely enables decentralised forums to coexist with centralised venues. The Lemmy implementation in particular does nothing to proactively promote decentralisation or counter concentrations of power.

When the software is not designed to steer toward decentralisation, centralisation persists because the network effect is left uncountered. The current stats prove that a mass majority of users and their activity are subject to the concentrated power of a few, which ultimately singularly falls under the power, oversight, and competency of the biggest walled garden in the world: Cloudflare Inc, in the US.

Calling Lemmy “neutral” is overly generous, in fact. When the stock Lemmy web client is queried for communities, it prioritises the giant centralised communities in top rankings of the search results. It’s no better than Google, where Cloudflare also dominates the top slots in web search results. This exacerbates the network effect by cattle-herding people toward increased centralisation.

Lemmy ranks decentralised communities at the bottom. And in some cases the ranking is so low that it’s out of reach when cross-posting. The cross-post mechanism forces a search for the target community, and that search does not support entry of the address of the community that includes the domain. When the list is so long it exceeds the pulldown window length, it’s out of reach.

Yes, we know centralisation is not their deliberate goal. Lemmy developers fear that newcoming novices would unwittingly post in a ghost town without strategically cross-posting and then become immediately discouraged by minimal engagement, and from there bounce back to Twitter or wherever they came from. But it must be realised that the mass nannied steering they have resorted to has cultivated centralisation that defeats the founding purpose of the fedi.

The fediverse w/the activitypub API sell itself as being decentralised, but it’s actually just neutral. It merely enables decentralised forums to coexist with centralised venues. The Lemmy implementation in particular does nothing to proactively promote decentralisation or counter concentrations of power.

When the software is not designed to steer toward decentralisation, centralisation persists because the network effect is left uncountered. The current stats prove that a mass majority of users and their activity are subject to the concentrated power of a few, which ultimately singularly falls under the power, oversight, and competency of the biggest walled garden in the world: Cloudflare Inc, in the US.

Calling Lemmy “neutral” is overly generous, in fact. When the stock Lemmy web client is queried for communities, it prioritises the giant centralised communities in top rankings of the search results. It’s no better than Google, where Cloudflare also dominates the top slots in web search results. This exacerbates the network effect by cattle-herding people toward increased centralisation.

Lemmy ranks decentralised communities at the bottom. And in some cases the ranking is so low that it’s out of reach when cross-posting. The cross-post mechanism forces a search for the target community, and that search does not support entry of the address of the community that includes the domain. When the list is so long it exceeds the pulldown window length, it’s out of reach.

Yes, we know centralisation is not their deliberate goal. Lemmy developers fear that newcoming novices would unwittingly post in a ghost town without strategically cross-posting and then become immediately discouraged by minimal engagement, and from there bounce back to Twitter or wherever they came from. But it must be realised that the mass nannied steering they have resorted to has cultivated centralisation that defeats the founding purpose of the fedi.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/24727109

The right to be analog is a critical enabler to the power to boycott.

Suppose you boycott Microsoft and Google. If you need to reach a gov office who uses MS or Google for email, then you are writing a snail mail letter. Denmark has eliminated the national postal service. The loss of an important analog option forces Danes to use the digital mechanism. No one in Denmark can say: “hold on, I am boycotting Microsoft, so I cannot be obligated to correspond with your office”.

No country gives its people either rights. That is, there is no country that gives you a right to boycott or the right be analog. In principle, we could loosely claim to derive those rights through the human rights to autonomy, dignity, and self-determination. But that won’t hold up in court, as human rights are generally disregarded in court. Abstract human rights like that are really a long-shot as well. Even if a court were to concede to human rights, you’ve already lost if you have to go to court because in Europe you cannot generally recover all damages even if the judge takes your side.

I believe a window of opportunity is passing us by. If we do not establish a right to be analog hard and fast, it will be too late once mechanisms supporting our analog refuge are gone.

Europe is quietly removing the cash option. Europeans are boiling frogs. They don’t see that they have already lost the option to be free from banks. Forced banking is already in force. This enables banks to gradually force you onto their enshitified digital platforms.

What I find most disturbing is how a vast majority are blind to this.

The right to be analog is a critical intrinsic enabler to the power to boycott.

Suppose you boycott Microsoft and Google. If you need to reach a gov office who uses MS or Google for email, then you are writing a snail mail letter. Denmark has eliminated the national postal service. The loss of an important analog option forces Danes to use the digital mechanism. No one in Denmark can say: “hold on, I am boycotting Microsoft, so I cannot be obligated to correspond with your office”.

No country gives its people either rights. That is, there is no country that gives you a right to boycott or the right be analog. In principle, we could loosely claim to derive those rights through the human rights to autonomy, dignity, and self-determination. But that won’t hold up in court, as human rights are generally disregarded in court. Abstract human rights like that are really a long-shot as well. Even if a court were to concede to human rights, you’ve already lost if you have to go to court because in Europe you cannot generally recover all damages even if the judge takes your side.

I believe a window of opportunity is passing us by. If we do not establish a right to be analog hard and fast, it will be too late once mechanisms supporting our analog refuge are gone.

Europe is quietly removing the cash option. Europeans are boiling frogs. They don’t see that they have already lost the option to be free from banks. Forced banking is already in force. This enables banks to gradually force you onto their enshitified digital platforms.

What I find most disturbing is how a vast majority are blind to this.

The attachment is a page from the annual report by a national ombudsman produced for politicians who use the stats in policy making. The ombudsman accepts complaints online and also by analog means. The annual report considers the method of complaint submission a “key figure”.

This report shows 77% of submissions to be electronic. It indicates the digital platform is a “success”, to some extent. I’m not sure what their goal or expectation is, but there is certainly no shame or defeat in that figure. They are likely patting themselves on the back.

When a platform is enshitified, we need that metric to reflect failure. Suppose hypothetically their goal is 90% digital. They will investigate why 23% of complainants are submitting paper, calling, or appearing in person. Suppose such investigation were to find:

• 14% lack digital literacy
• 6% have no easy access to the Internet
• 3% other (e.g. refusal of enshitified platforms)

(^fabricated sample figures) They will ignore the 3% because it’s too small to help reach their goal. They will work on improving public access to the Internet (via libraries). They will recruit digitally competent people to help the elderly (and in fact they just started this.. called the “digital buddy program”).

In any case, if you dance for them and navigate their hurdles to submit an electronic form, whether you like it or not your submission sends a clear signal that the digital platform is a success. You therefore serve as an enabler.

Complaining despite being an enabler is generally insufficient. See part 2 of 3.

There is immense pressure on public administrations now to respect the environment. They have obligations to satisify green policy objectives which includes pushing the “digital transformation” down our throats. They care more about that than public satisfaction. They also know that environmental policy influences election votes much more than digital rights policy.

If you simply complain about enshitification despite using the platform and thereby creating a metric to the contrary, the complaint is just seen as “someone is unhappy”. They may or may not count unhappy campers. But even if they do, it’s a lower priority metric.

We often must choose between fighting enshitification or protecting the environment. We cannot have it both ways in many situations. If you do everything digitally, there is no question you are whole-hog supporting enshitified platforms.

Casting an anti-enshitification vote requires using analog methods like snail-mail. The “right to be analog” movement (!right_to_unplug@sopuli.xyz) goes hand-in-hand with anti-enshitification¹. We need to protect the postal service. The threat is real, considering Denmark has eliminated their postal service nation-wide this year. The postal service is our refuge from enshitification. Without postal service, you are absolutely forced to eat their digital shit.

IMO climate activists have a tendency to exaggerate anyway. The GHG footprint of a paper letter and envelope is overblown, while at the same time the GHG footprints of digital transactions are downplayed. No one talks about how a graphical image on the stationary of an email payload exceeds the CO₂ footprint of a paper envelope.

See How to cast your anti-enshitification vote.

¹ In fact, note to mods: consider adding !right_to_unplug@sopuli.xyz as a related community in the sidebar.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/24684125

My fight against enshitification entails hand-delivering paper correspondence by bicycle. I also re-use the windowed envelopes that I receive. When I run out those, I leave the envelope unsealed so the recipient can easily reuse the new envelope.

The recipient generally must use the postal service to reply. And rightly so. Penalizing them with the cost of printing and posting serves as a means to punish them for the enshitified digital path they offer. For me, this approach sufficiently casts my anti-enshitification votes while supporting the postal service that gives refuge from enshitification, without excessive environmental detriment.

The LaTeX scrlttr2 class is useful for using and re-using windowed envelopes. If the envelope is standard, the geometry may be known to the supplied KOMAscript machinery. If not, a few measurements can be given as parameters to align an address in a custom window.

To load the US №9 standard envelope, you would start with:

\documentclass[UScommercial9]{scrlttr2}

or for the French standard:

\documentclass[NF]{scrlttr2}

If you reuse a non-standard windowed envelope, you can put the following in the preamble and tamper with the measurements as needed:

\makeatletter
\setplength{foldmarkhpos}{4.2mm}   % default=3.5mm; distance from paper edge to fold mark; should account for the unprintable area of your printer
\setplength{tfoldmarkvpos}{108mm}  % default=99mm; distance between top fold mark and top paper edge
\setplength{firstheadwidth}{190mm} % default=170mm for NF and \paperwidth for others; width of letterhead
\setplength{firstheadvpos}{10mm}   % default=15mm for NF; distance from top edge to letterhead
\setplength{toaddrvpos}{40mm}      % default=35mm; distance between top of window and top paper edge
\setplength{toaddrhpos}{98mm}      % default=-10mm; distance from the left edge of the paper to the address field (if positive)
\setplength{toaddrindent}{5mm}     % default=10mm; left and right indentation of the address within the to-address box
\setplength{toaddrheight}{40mm}    % default=45mm
\makeatother

My fight against enshitification entails hand-delivering paper correspondence by bicycle. I also re-use the windowed envelopes that I receive. When I run out those, I leave the envelope unsealed so the recipient can easily reuse the new envelope.

The recipient generally must use the postal service to reply. And rightly so. Penalizing them with the cost of printing and posting serves as a means to punish them for the enshitified digital path they offer. For me, this approach sufficiently casts my anti-enshitification votes while supporting the postal service that gives refuge from enshitification, without excessive environmental detriment.

The LaTeX scrlttr2 class is useful for using and re-using windowed envelopes. If the envelope is standard, the geometry may be known to the supplied KOMAscript machinery. If not, a few measurements can be given as parameters to align an address in a custom window.

To load the US №9 standard envelope, you would start with:

\documentclass[UScommercial9]{scrlttr2}

or for the French standard:

\documentclass[NF]{scrlttr2}

If you reuse a non-standard windowed envelope, you can put the following in the preamble and tamper with the measurements as needed:

\makeatletter
\setplength{foldmarkhpos}{4.2mm}   % default=3.5mm; distance from paper edge to fold mark; should account for the unprintable area of your printer
\setplength{tfoldmarkvpos}{108mm}  % default=99mm; distance between top fold mark and top paper edge
\setplength{firstheadwidth}{190mm} % default=170mm for NF and \paperwidth for others; width of letterhead
\setplength{firstheadvpos}{10mm}   % default=15mm for NF; distance from top edge to letterhead
\setplength{toaddrvpos}{40mm}      % default=35mm; distance between top of window and top paper edge
\setplength{toaddrhpos}{98mm}      % default=-10mm; distance from the left edge of the paper to the address field (if positive)
\setplength{toaddrindent}{5mm}     % default=10mm; left and right indentation of the address within the to-address box
\setplength{toaddrheight}{40mm}    % default=45mm
\makeatother

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/24598576

The state of the fedi superficially parallels what Eric S. Raymond articulated in the 1990s on software construction. There are two models for digital community building within the fediverse. The intent was a decentralised bazaar whereby power is well dispersed, with no single entity excessively wielding disproportionate power. Activitypub was designed to enable the bazaar model to exist, but it neglects to curtail the antithetical model that anarchy-minded folks want to escape: the cathedral.

The hope and expectation was simply that builders of giant monolithic cathedrals would have no interest in the fedi; that they would want their empire to take the conventional path of walling themselves off. Fedi founders did not envision ambitions for power would emerge within the fedi. Who would have predicted that Facebook would decide to compromise its garden walls in exchange for influence over a quite small population? Or that Cloudflare’s centralized walled garden would be exploited to supercharge disproportionate growth by node operators intent on using the network effect to concentrate power? These kinds of technofeudal actors have traditionally vied for absolute power without attempting to cannabalise and occupy a fair structure to then coexist with.

Fedi founders thought the federate/defederate option would sufficiently control for actors who would work against the vision of the bazaar. This blunt tool relies heavily on the demographic of relative pseudo anarchists being larger than it is.

I think it was Kensanata (Alex Schröder) who notably stressed what I regard as a true dichotomy, the sentiment of which was something to the effect of:

you can simply go where the people are, or you can go where the platform and tech is well-designed.¹

The former are utilitarians and the latter are deontologists who find other people (though far fewer) that share the same understanding and appreciation of structures that feature resistance to tyranny. The separation is comparable to anarchists (at heart) seeking out a small freedom-rich niche away from the ivory tower cathedral.

The bazaar (decentralised) segment of the fedi comes at the cost of utility, as principles of digital ethics trump the instant gratification of a large audience. The sacrifice is not in vain. It’s made with an expectation that wisdom will spread and sustain. Though it seems clear that the cathedral will always exist and perhaps always enjoy dominance of the majority who serve it (are pawned by it).

There is a noteworthy contrast from Raymond’s C&B essay. Raymond likens the bazaar to “selfish agents” attributed to “utilitarian” Linux hackers under the idea that Linus harnesses their egos collectively (“egoboo”). Whereas in the fediverse of community builders, it is the selfish agents unwilling to compromise time and convenience who fill the cathedrals, baited by heavily populated communities.

Raves and Burning Man started off small and great; rich in culture, before rapid growth diluted the subculture and commercialisation did what it does. The natural response is to “take it underground” to try to restore the original greatness.

The fedi has passed that inflection point. We have LW serfs popping into */c/privacy communities to heckle whoever they perceive as “paranoid”, or worse, deliver a lecture on privacy (from Cloudflare). There is a profound and somewhat ironic number of CF cathedral folks making way into digital rights types of communities, not seeing the starkness of which would be comparable to Donald Trump appearing at a reggae festival, or an AOL user in the 1990s stepping into an engineering usenet newsgroup.

So here’s a fun search result:

🌩 lemmy.world🌩|decentralization 🌩 kbin.earth🌩|decentralize ⚠lemmy.ml/c/decentralized

There are just 3 communities specifically for decentralisation chatter and they are all on centralised hosts. It’s actually useful that they exist in those places from an outreach standpoint. But it’s likely being overly generous to assume they exist for outreach to those who need to be reached.

Anyway, going forward we need tools and datasets with metrics. The metrics currently serve the utilitarian who simply looks for the most exposure of their content without regard to the ethics underpinning decentralisation. Metrics that serve the bazaar would have to measure degree of power centralisation.

¹ paraphrased - not an exact quote

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/24598576

The state of the fedi superficially parallels what Eric S. Raymond articulated in the 1990s on software construction. There are two models for digital community building within the fediverse. The intent was a decentralised bazaar whereby power is well dispersed, with no single entity excessively wielding disproportionate power. Activitypub was designed to enable the bazaar model to exist, but it neglects to curtail the antithetical model that anarchy-minded folks want to escape: the cathedral.

The hope and expectation was simply that builders of giant monolithic cathedrals would have no interest in the fedi; that they would want their empire to take the conventional path of walling themselves off. Fedi founders did not envision ambitions for power would emerge within the fedi. Who would have predicted that Facebook would decide to compromise its garden walls in exchange for influence over a quite small population? Or that Cloudflare’s centralized walled garden would be exploited to supercharge disproportionate growth by node operators intent on using the network effect to concentrate power? These kinds of technofeudal actors have traditionally vied for absolute power without attempting to cannabalise and occupy a fair structure to then coexist with.

Fedi founders thought the federate/defederate option would sufficiently control for actors who would work against the vision of the bazaar. This blunt tool relies heavily on the demographic of relative pseudo anarchists being larger than it is.

I think it was Kensanata (Alex Schröder) who notably stressed what I regard as a true dichotomy, the sentiment of which was something to the effect of:

you can simply go where the people are, or you can go where the platform and tech is well-designed.¹

The former are utilitarians and the latter are deontologists who find other people (though far fewer) that share the same understanding and appreciation of structures that feature resistance to tyranny. The separation is comparable to anarchists (at heart) seeking out a small freedom-rich niche away from the ivory tower cathedral.

The bazaar (decentralised) segment of the fedi comes at the cost of utility, as principles of digital ethics trump the instant gratification of a large audience. The sacrifice is not in vain. It’s made with an expectation that wisdom will spread and sustain. Though it seems clear that the cathedral will always exist and perhaps always enjoy dominance of the majority who serve it (are pawned by it).

There is a noteworthy contrast from Raymond’s C&B essay. Raymond likens the bazaar to “selfish agents” attributed to “utilitarian” Linux hackers under the idea that Linus harnesses their egos collectively (“egoboo”). Whereas in the fediverse of community builders, it is the selfish agents unwilling to compromise time and convenience who fill the cathedrals, baited by heavily populated communities.

Raves and Burning Man started off small and great; rich in culture, before rapid growth diluted the subculture and commercialisation did what it does. The natural response is to “take it underground” to try to restore the original greatness.

The fedi has passed that inflection point. We have LW serfs popping into */c/privacy communities to heckle whoever they perceive as “paranoid”, or worse, deliver a lecture on privacy (from Cloudflare). There is a profound and somewhat ironic number of CF cathedral folks making way into digital rights types of communities, not seeing the starkness of which would be comparable to Donald Trump appearing at a reggae festival, or an AOL user in the 1990s stepping into an engineering usenet newsgroup.

So here’s a fun search result:

🌩 lemmy.world🌩|decentralization 🌩 kbin.earth🌩|decentralize ⚠lemmy.ml/c/decentralized

There are just 3 communities specifically for decentralisation chatter and they are all on centralised hosts. It’s actually useful that they exist in those places from an outreach standpoint. But it’s likely being overly generous to assume they exist for outreach to those who need to be reached.

Anyway, going forward we need tools and datasets with metrics. The metrics currently serve the utilitarian who simply looks for the most exposure of their content without regard to the ethics underpinning decentralisation. Metrics that serve the bazaar would have to measure degree of power centralisation.

¹ paraphrased - not an exact quote

The state of the fedi superficially parallels what Eric S. Raymond articulated in the 1990s on software construction. There are two models for digital community building within the fediverse. The intent was a decentralised bazaar whereby power is well dispersed, with no single entity excessively wielding disproportionate power. Activitypub was designed to enable the bazaar model to exist, but it neglects to curtail the antithetical model that anarchy-minded folks want to escape: the cathedral.

The hope and expectation was simply that builders of giant monolithic cathedrals would have no interest in the fedi; that they would want their empire to take the conventional path of walling themselves off. Fedi founders did not envision ambitions for power would emerge within the fedi. Who would have predicted that Facebook would decide to compromise its garden walls in exchange for influence over a quite small population? Or that Cloudflare’s centralized walled garden would be exploited to supercharge disproportionate growth by node operators intent on using the network effect to concentrate power? These kinds of technofeudal actors have traditionally vied for absolute power without attempting to cannabalise and occupy a fair structure to then coexist with.

Fedi founders thought the federate/defederate option would sufficiently control for actors who would work against the vision of the bazaar. This blunt tool relies heavily on the demographic of relative pseudo anarchists being larger than it is.

I think it was Kensanata (Alex Schröder) who notably stressed what I regard as a true dichotomy, the sentiment of which was something to the effect of:

you can simply go where the people are, or you can go where the platform and tech is well-designed.¹

The former are utilitarians and the latter are deontologists who find other people (though far fewer) that share the same understanding and appreciation of structures that feature resistance to tyranny. The separation is comparable to anarchists (at heart) seeking out a small freedom-rich niche away from the ivory tower cathedral.

The bazaar (decentralised) segment of the fedi comes at the cost of utility, as principles of digital ethics trump the instant gratification of a large audience. The sacrifice is not in vain. It’s made with an expectation that wisdom will spread and sustain. Though it seems clear that the cathedral will always exist and perhaps always enjoy dominance of the majority who serve it (are pawned by it).

There is a noteworthy contrast from Raymond’s C&B essay. Raymond likens the bazaar to “selfish agents” attributed to “utilitarian” Linux hackers under the idea that Linus harnesses their egos collectively (“egoboo”). Whereas in the fediverse of community builders, it is the selfish agents unwilling to compromise time and convenience who fill the cathedrals, baited by heavily populated communities.

Raves and Burning Man started off small and great; rich in culture, before rapid growth diluted the subculture and commercialisation did what it does. The natural response is to “take it underground” to try to restore the original greatness.

The fedi has passed that inflection point. We have LW serfs popping into */c/privacy communities to heckle whoever they perceive as “paranoid”, or worse, deliver a lecture on privacy (from Cloudflare). There is a profound and somewhat ironic number of CF cathedral folks making way into digital rights types of communities, not seeing the starkness of which would be comparable to Donald Trump appearing at a reggae festival, or an AOL user in the 1990s stepping into an engineering usenet newsgroup.

So here’s a fun search result:

🌩 lemmy.world🌩|decentralization
🌩 kbin.earth🌩|decentralize
⚠lemmy.ml/c/decentralized

There are just 3 communities specifically for decentralisation chatter and they are all on centralised hosts. It’s actually useful that they exist in those places from an outreach standpoint. But it’s likely being overly generous to assume they exist for outreach to those who need to be reached.

Anyway, going forward we need tools and datasets with metrics. The metrics currently serve the utilitarian who simply looks for the most exposure of their content without regard to the ethics underpinning decentralisation. Metrics that serve the bazaar would have to measure degree of power centralisation.

¹ paraphrased - not an exact quote