Post

"If your decentralised protocol is missing features, the market will add them with centralisation." — @goat.navy *This*: - is why why the web was captured; - is why email became concentrated; - is why ActivityPub, as defined today, isn't capture-resistant.

This is a true statement, but I think we have to also add that no protocol exists that isn’t missing features, which is why centralization always gets added. Including to blockchain stuff.

If centralisation fills in missing features in decentralised protocols & no protocol is complete: how to slice/layer so each protocol can be more easily complete within its niche seems part of the answer --guessing that architectural view made the Internet resilient to (instant) centralisation

Yes. Small orthogonal protocols that you can deploy fast is key. That's why the application layer is a lie: you have to keep going!

Curious about your views on how existing standardisation forums have fulfilled their role in providing a space for the development of such protocols and/or to move forward

Agreed. We should remind ourselves that the Internet, and the web itself, remain effectively uncaptured and decentralized. Users have *decided* to use centralized things built on top of them. We can now try to enshrine capture-resistant clones of the good parts (basically the Bluesky strategy).

I disagree, the web is captured. What you can do is dependent on coordination with what others do. So if you want someone to find you, you have to agree to Google's rules. Classic example of capturing something that wasn't built.

I enjoyed that article, thanks! The counterpoint is: signal.org/blog/the-eco... which reminds us centralized systems have faster evolution feedback loops. We can build capture-resistant systems, but convincing consumers they are preferable to fast-evolving systems is a tough sell.

I'm well familiar with that blog post and it makes important points but doesn't analyse them closely enough IMHO. He's operating on the assumption of a monolithic client for the protocol, so that you have a point of control — just like email, browsers, chat. But that's one (bad) model!

I would love it if email were just a way to move data between others and me, and then I had different clients with completely different views. We sort of have that with calendaring, but you could have way more. But it doesn't work.