|
|
|
@ -1,55 +0,0 @@ |
|
|
|
Title:re: social media critique: next steps? |
|
|
|
Date: 2018-01-28 |
|
|
|
Category: article |
|
|
|
Slug: sm-critique-next-steps |
|
|
|
lang: en |
|
|
|
author: Roel Roscam Abbing |
|
|
|
status: draft |
|
|
|
summary: In january of 2018 a discussion on [Nettime](https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-1801/msg00045.html) took place on the question what next steps for social media critique could be. As criticism of large social media platforms becomes increasingly commonplace in popular media and even from within Silicon Valley itself, the discussion centered around the question of what the role of critical communities like nettime could be. Since the discussion missed some context on recent developments from the non-GAFA/Free Software developments in this field media I've replied with some comments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In january of 2018 a discussion on [Nettime](https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-1801/msg00045.html) took place on the question what next steps for social media critique could be. As criticism of large social media platforms becomes increasingly commonplace in popular media and even from within Silicon Valley itself, the discussion centered around the question of what the role of critical communities like nettime could be. Since the discussion missed some context on recent developments from the non-GAFA[ref]Google/Amazon/Facebook/Apple[/ref]/Free Software developments in this field media I've replied with some comments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> This is in the end what Silicon Valley tries to prevent at all cost: |
|
|
|
> resistance and exodus. How can such a momentum be unleashed? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So aside from the discussion of who listens (or didn't listen) to whose opinion it can be interesting to have a closer look at action and momentum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three projects caught my attention and I think could be an interesting case for this 'next steps' discussion: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mastodon (2016) en Conversations (2014) and Peertube (2015)[ref]These are the dates of the project's source code first appearing in public, they are still actively updated and used.[/ref] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All three are projects that during the past twelve months have somehow reinvigorated (the work on, attention for) their underlying protocols. Protocols that have been proclaimed dead or unsuccessful for many years. And probably will be for more to come. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first one, Mastodon [ref][https://joinmastodon.org/](https://joinmastodon.org/)[/ref], you may have read about or even tried out. It is essentially a twitter clone / alternative. Technically it is based on Ostatus, which is a protocol to distribute status updates across networks. Ostatus is the protocol that powered early 'alternative 2.0 style' social networks such as Friendica and Lorea. The latter was a product of and important site of organization for the Spanish Indignados and 15M movements. Mastodon also supports ActivityPub which is the likely successor of Ostatus as a protocol for |
|
|
|
further ongoing work on so-called federated publishing. The interesting thing is that Mastodon managed to attract a good chunk of the recent Twitter refugees. These where mostly voices which aren't white, loud or extreme right wing and for those reasons felt themselves increasingly out of place on twitter. Mastodon communities managed to involve so many of these people by focusing on developing tools for community moderation, content warnings and the ability to block other instances in the network. As a result (the english language) Mastodon became a site that is predominantly populated by the queer, PoC, left and artistic, or anyone that would otherwise be at risk of being on the receiving end of the Gamergate-style interactions on twitter. The decentralized nature of |
|
|
|
Mastodon has created a culture of 'thematic mastodon servers (see https://instances.social/list) that have become a large part of what makes the network interesting and relevant to its several hundredthousand users. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversations [ref][https://conversations.im](https://conversations.im/)[/ref] is a messaging application that is based on the very old XMPP protocol. This is a chat protocol |
|
|
|
which has at one point also been the underlying technology of both Google and Facebook chat before they closed it down and made it proprietary. From the onset Conversations focused on a combination of user friendliness, security and ultimately visual design to be on par with mobile messengers such as whatsapp and telegram. The work of Conversations has reinvigorated the XMPP protocol. Partly because it focused on implementing the double-ratchett encryption algorithm almost immediately after it was open-sourced. This is the modern userfriendly end-to-end encryption algorithm developed by Moxie Marlinspike for Signal and licensed to companies like Whatsapp. Another effect of the work of Conversations is that the decades old protocol has been updated in the span of a few years to work very well for mobile usage. For me one of the interesting aspects of the development of Conversations is the role that modern thinking on UIs, design and user friendliness played in its popularity. This especially becomes apparent in the very technical and awkward world of XMPP software. The developer has mentioned multiple times that he 'bases' his design on that of his GAFA 'competitors'. Apropos tactical media, this project's appropriation of corporate design, yet very clear and solid political stance (see https://gultsch.de/objection.html) leading to an increase in popularity and community involvement is an interesting development. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lastly, Peertube [ref][Peertube website](https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube)[/ref] is an attempt at making the hosting of video content accessible to small organizations. The sheer amount of infrastructure and thus capital required to set up an alternative to the monopoly position of Youtube, forces any project trying to replace Youtube to use peer-to-peer technologies. Peertube does so by trying to implement WebTorrents. Like the older 'BitTorrent' protocol it is based on, WebTorrent tries to mitigate the sheer amount of data and bandwith involved with exchanging online media, by making sure these are streamed from many sources at once. Unlike torrents, which need separate applications, WebTorrents run in familiar web browsers. One could say the conceptual forbearer of this approach was a project called Popcorn Time (2014). An app that convinced many with its good UI and design to do 'Netflix-like' streaming on top of the torrent network. Again this is something that lead to a reinvigoration of the decaying (use-wise) torrenting protocol. (I'd also argue though, that Popcorn Time was simultaneously the nail in the coffin for torrenting because of the individualistic streaming mentality built into it. This also meant the definite end of what remained of -collectivist?- seeding/sharing culture on public trackers.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The position of the Peertube as a viable alternative or successful project is the most tenuous of the three. However, one might argue that our definition of success in this context should also be readjusted - away from the Silicon Valley, venture capitalist sense of success using metrics like usage counts, market cap, patent value etc. By nature of being built upon open, compatible and federative technologies, developments happening in all three projects could, and probably will, end up supporting one another. They do so to the extent that one project could even become an integral part of the other. As an example both Mastodon and Peertube use the same underlying ActivityPub, allowing one to become the underlying video delivery function of the other. As was the case with Friendica, Lorea and Mastodon, projects might stop but then become stepping stones and inspirations for newer generations of projects. In this sense definitions of success should consider the quality of longer term technological ecosystems within larger socio-political contexts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the striking things for me to take away from these projects are: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All three projects have managed to reinvigorate 'decaying' protocols in large part through their focus on UX, language and interestingly design. Which seems to me a huge opportunity for the arts which has been left largely unused in the first round of social media critique. Perhaps the model of artistic production in this domain should move away from the artists being on the forefront, sensing out emerging tendencies and taking the spotlight by creating mostly harmless critical and speculative works around these tendencies. Next steps for artistic social media critique should instead take a much more humble and supportive role contributing expertise, time and exposure to people working in and with these ecosystems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All three projects are based on federation. Which is the idea that various actors maki g up a network decide to cooperate in a collective fashion. Distributing responsibility and power as they do so. The future of social media has to be federated or there won't be any (for those privileged enough to retreat..). I think the case of Mastodon, where |
|
|
|
servers in the Ostatus federation are experimenting with blocking hostile content altogether from other servers in the federation (while still maintaining technical compatibility) are interesting experiments. For one, the debates over on-line harassment and fake news show that the grand 'electronic agoras', where one can find anyone and everyone |
|
|
|
clearly aren't conducive to productive interchange of ideas. Perhaps smallish, self caring communities are a good answer to the profit driven model of infinite interconnectedness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lastly, I think it is no coincidence that two out of three of the projects have Germans leading development and all three are European based projects. I guess the following is anecdotal and partial evidence. Yet, I've not seen Google and Facebook run full page advertorials in leading daily newspapers except in the German ones. Ostensibly, part of |
|
|
|
an attempt on their side to prevent mass user exodus out of discomfort with the platform. It is in part German historical sensibility that leads to this kind of sensitivity on the issues of privacy, but it is also a sensitivity that is actively nurtured in public discourse. No Silicon Valley apologies are required for there to be scepsis. At the |
|
|
|
same time the European context apparently provides good enough living conditions for people to risk investing time in this kind of work. Risk which is also partly mitigated by initiatives such as German Prototype Fund and other European funding streams. However, testament to the fact that these projects have healthy communities and are part of wider ecosystems of support is that all projects finance themselves from diverse revenue streams, user contributions being the main one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I'd say next steps for a social media critique would be to be more involved in (and involve more) these communities. To use positions of power to create opportunities for people working on these projects. While the center of development of these projects is Western-Europe they have many contributors outside of Europe as well, that could benefit even more from such opportunities. At the same time, doing close readings of the technical underpinnings of these media will also improve understanding of what is (not) going on. Now obviously all this was a news flash from within a very specific filter bubble, but actually from there 2017 was a very promising year for alternative media. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I still believe in vital methods to mass delete Facebook accounts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say start doing so, but help your friends. Use your network effect |
|
|
|
to transition together to different kind of media. This is slow and |
|
|
|
laborious so mutual support is important. The time is always right, but |
|
|
|
now more than ever. |
|
|
|
|
