Post 1224523 by mayel@pub.mayel.space
(DIR) More posts by mayel@pub.mayel.space
(DIR) Post #1204298 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2018-11-14T13:52:11Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
Matt Slater responds to the rise of the #PlatformCooperativism movement by issuing a call for #ProtocolCooperativism:https://platform.coop/stories/protocol-cooperativism
(DIR) Post #1224522 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2018-11-14T13:58:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I have lot of sympathy for Matt Slater's arguments for Protocol Cooperativism. This is essentially the songbook I was singing from, since the late 90s, and throughout my time working on the Aotearoa localizations of #Indymedia and #CreativeCommons. But in hindsight, those songs were naive. As Matt points out within his own essay, capitalists have already figured out ways to dominate open networks based on open protocols (eg Microsoft's "embrace, extend, extinguish"). Ownership matters.
(DIR) Post #1224523 by mayel@pub.mayel.space
2018-11-14T14:16:16.802729Z
2 likes, 3 repeats
@strypey Don't you think "embrace, extend, extinguish" depends on us accepting their propositions though? (eg. using Github), maybe out of convenience, cost saving, or even necessity (eg. using it to survive capitalism). Hence we need networked alternatives (making them protocol-based means we can achieve 'network effects' and scale cooperatively, rather than each small initiative having to fight that battle again and again) that are not only convenient and attractive to use, but which also help us thrive economically (something @matslats and others have been working on for a long time)...
(DIR) Post #1224524 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2018-11-14T14:49:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mayel @matslats to be clear, I'm not arguing against open protocols. I'm saying they've proved to be necessary but not sufficient. Open protocols alone haven't stopped #DataFarms dominating chat (gOgle started out embracing and extending XMPP, then effectively extinguished it by de-federating and switching to WebRTC). They haven't stopped them dominating the web (embracing and extending HTTP on both server and client ends). There are numerous other examples.
(DIR) Post #1224525 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2018-11-14T14:54:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mayel @matslats What allows them to dominate? They have financial resources smaller players don't. For example, they can pay as many fulltime staff as they need to make their products and services more attractive than more freedom-respecting alternatives. They can get their PR posters slapped up all over major cities. Protocols + cooperatives offers us a way to compete with this. The point of Platform Cooperativism is that neither can do it alone, which is what Matt's essay seems to miss.
(DIR) Post #1224526 by bhaugen@social.coop
2018-11-14T15:00:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @mayel @matslats I don't know if Matt will see or respond to this here, but I don't think he disagrees with that.
(DIR) Post #1224527 by matslats@social.coop
2018-11-14T15:03:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bhaugen @strypey @mayel I'm no expert, just looking for the most achievable way to connect all the diverse social movements. ActivityPub seems like the right wagon to ride at the moment.
(DIR) Post #1224528 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2018-11-14T15:38:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bhaugen @mayel apologies @matslats , when I read the second part of your essay more carefully I see you are essentially making same argument I am making here. I guess it comes down to our understanding of the rather loose term "platform". To me the net, the web, and the fediverse (everything connected via ActivityPub) are platforms. You seem to use it in your essay to specifically describe centralized infrastructures.
(DIR) Post #1224529 by bhaugen@social.coop
2018-11-14T15:58:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @mayel @matslats > You seem to use it in your essay to specifically describe centralized infrastructures.That's the way I use it, too. My understanding of platform cooperatives is they are centralized infrastructures owned by a cooperative, that is, owned by their participants depending on the type of co-op.Is any of that wrong? I am always ready to be wrong and learn something new.
(DIR) Post #1224530 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2018-11-15T11:17:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bhaugen @mayel @matslats your definition is becoming a common one, and is perfectly valid. But "platform" is a fairly loose term. People have talked about OS as platforms (eg "the GNU/Linux platform), network protocols as platforms (the web as a platform), and so on. It's one of those terms that needs to be defined for the purpose of any given discussion, so we don't end up talking past each other ;)
(DIR) Post #1224531 by bhaugen@social.coop
2018-11-15T11:48:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @mayel @matslats I was assuming the context was platform cooperatives, and asking if I was using the term the way the platform co-op people do.
(DIR) Post #1224532 by bhaugen@social.coop
2018-11-15T14:40:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @mayel @matslats If you consider a platform cooperative to be a centralized and hosted system owned, operated, and governed by a cooperative, it is easy to tell what the cooperative owns.If it's an open protocol, how does a cooperative own it?A cooperative could form to create and maintain software that runs the protocol. SSB is starting more than one organization like thatOr cooperative could form to host sites that run the protocol, for example, social.coop. (part 1 of 2)
(DIR) Post #1224533 by bhaugen@social.coop
2018-11-15T14:42:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @mayel @matslats (Part 2 of 2)Many cooperatives could form to develop various apps that us the protocol.And also many cooperatives could use the protocol, apps, etc, to conduct their cooperative activities.
(DIR) Post #1224534 by h@sunbeam.city
2018-11-15T15:01:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bhaugen Capitalists centralising everything and always competing for profit rather than collaborating can never get cooperativism right. Free Software is anathema to their process, even if they benefit from it, there's a fundamental philosophical impossibility in being for capital and being for collaboration at the same time. US Liberals really need to make their minds up.@strypey @mayel @matslats
(DIR) Post #1224535 by 361.xj9@social.sunshinegardens.org
2018-11-15T15:09:54.903232Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h @matslats @mayel @strypey @bhaugen this isn’t even true. cooperation is valuable from a capitalist standpoint even if monopolist corporations tend to have a structural blindness to it.
(DIR) Post #1225156 by h@sunbeam.city
2018-11-15T15:29:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xj9 I wasn't even talking to you. I already know that you always have everything completely backwards, you don't need to remind me. For some reason I forgot to block you from this account too, just stay away from me.
(DIR) Post #1225157 by 361.xj9@social.sunshinegardens.org
2018-11-15T15:36:47.015836Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h this is called disagreeing. p normal thing fampai
(DIR) Post #1225479 by bhaugen@social.coop
2018-11-15T15:50:01Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@xj9 @h That could have become an interesting sidelight on this thread if y'all were a little more nuanced and not so absolute and did not feel like you had to have a debate. For example, here are a bunch of nuances on collaboration in capitalism, which does happen, but is often crippled by competition:https://www.academia.edu/10252910/The_uneasy_transition_from_supply_chains_to_ecosystems_The_value-creation_value-capture_dilemma(warning: very dry and academic, you'll get the picture quickly though)
(DIR) Post #1225480 by 361.xj9@social.sunshinegardens.org
2018-11-15T15:54:53.795175Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bhaugen @h i’ve had interesting discussions with h in the past. but he decided that i’m too... something to keep talking to. i’ve been persuaded to change my position many times in fediverse discussions, but it wouldn’t be honest if i didn’t present my position with the strongest argument that i can make. some people don’t like it and that’s fine.
(DIR) Post #1239433 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2018-11-16T03:35:03Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@xj9 @h @matslats @mayel @bhaugen in order to have a productive discussion about "capitalism" or "capitalists", you first need to define these terms for the sake of the discussion. Otherwise all that can happen is people talking past each other based on differing assumptions about what aspects of the real world these terms are describing. I wrote about this in the wake of Occupy, see:https://www.coactivate.org/projects/disintermedia/what-s-a-capitalism-anyway
(DIR) Post #1239946 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2018-11-16T03:46:50Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@bhaugen @mayel @matslats again, I think the whole platform cooperativism thing is too new to assume a single, common definition of "platform". If you look at Uber, AirBnB, or TaskRabbit, I would argue that software or server infrastructure are not the platform, but rather the database of vendors and customers, and the things that make them trust it (mainly reputation and payment systems). So if these are decentralized via a protocol as @matslats proposes, I'd argue it's still a "platform".
(DIR) Post #1293332 by h@sunbeam.city
2018-11-17T02:21:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey They can afford to produce as many loss leaders as they want to leave every small shop out of business.@mayel @matslats
(DIR) Post #1293333 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2018-11-17T06:41:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h @mayel @matslats true, but one effective way to compete with that is a pitch based on shared values. I envision the digital equivalent of organic grocery cooperatives computing with corporate supermarkets or independent coffee house cooperatives competing with corporate cafe chains #DigitalCafes
(DIR) Post #1293334 by h@sunbeam.city
2018-11-17T10:48:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey I get you, and your idea fits in nicely with the concept of 'exodus' that @KevinCarson1 has written about extensively. The problem I see is that most cooperativists (especially in fiercely capitalist countries) are unaware of their own impossibility of being truly cooperative honouring all 7 ideals and pursuing capitalist objectives at the same time. 9 out of 10 adopt the cooperative form, but functionally they behave like a typical corp in everything but name.@mayel @matslats
(DIR) Post #1293335 by h@sunbeam.city
2018-11-17T10:54:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Most actually existing cooperatives still behave under the logic of competition and the capitalist production mode by default. It's not enough to say "we're a cooperative, we're good people". We should rather ask "Is this org really fostering collaboration and helpibg to produce common wealth beyond itself?". If the answer is "Yes, but..." then that really means "No".@KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats
(DIR) Post #1293336 by mike_hales@social.coop
2018-11-17T18:53:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h "we're a cooperative, we're good people". IMO it's not about 'values' - whatever they may be . . some kinda idealist arm-waving? Rather, actual relations of production, actual material articulation of forces of production? What joins up with what, in practice? Eg, are there commons being curated and stewarded, or just more consumers and workers seeking comfort? Is laying so much stress on 'values' one of the weakest things about coops?@strypey @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats
(DIR) Post #1293337 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2018-11-18T04:02:08Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@mike_hales @h @KevinCarson1 @mayel @matslats don't underrate the importance of values. The Four Freedoms are an articulation of a set of values. So are the permaculture ethics. They summarize, in simple terms, how production will and won't be done by an organisation that shares them. They allow for informal coordination of effort on a much larger scale than any set of formal MoUs.
(DIR) Post #2696992 by bhaugen@social.coop
2019-01-05T12:26:51Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Have capitalists dominated the fediverse yet?Or SSB?
(DIR) Post #2697181 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2019-01-06T08:16:19Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@bhaugen > Have capitalists dominated the fediverse yet?Not yet, but what's stopping them? History makes it clear that relying on the decentralized nature of the protocol is not enough. If we don't want the #fediverse going the way of email (vast majority of users on a handful of #DataFarms), we need ways to ensure that both software development and the deployment of non-capitalist instances are economically sustainable. The point I was making was that #PlatformCoops is one way to do that.