@malte i’m super into this - and would like to develop such systems hacks. I don’t totally understand your suggestion though. If more and more people sign - will it not make the dependency (I change if they change) more hard to reach. I probably misunderstood though …
@abekonge That's a valid concern and I follow you - yes, it would make the commitment harder and harder to reach. You could introduce some kind of version control. The simplest would just be to have a chronological list that would mean: "If all the people below me are committed to switching (which they are), then I'm game too" and then sign at the top of the list.
@abekonge A more complicated version would have a fluid system, so you indicate specifically who you would need to switch (person 2, 15, 16 and 34 etc) or a certain number of people from that list (35 people, no matter who they are). And then you commit to the system. When your threshold has been met, your name automatically goes on the list, you get a notification (to orient about your commitment now being in effect and public) and that will then create effects in the rest of the network.
@abekonge It could get even more complex (but also with higher potentiality) if we had ways of identifying people currently not in the system (lets just say with an email), so I could name person A and person B that are currently not on the list as someone I would need to make the switch. Those people get an email about my commitment, encouraging them to sign up. If they do, the system identifies them as part of my conditions and then automatically puts me on the list of people who are ready.
@malte @abekonge I agree that the network effect is the strongest barrier to switching.
It seems like some people organized #fediparty kind of analogous to the cryptoparty concept in Germany a couple years ago. Rebooting this approach seems like the most attractive approach to me, and I'm motivated to try holding one in #leipzig this year
@malte @abekonge while I really like the approach of migrating whole networks at a time, I am a bit skeptical with the level of organizational overhead I imagine your concept requires.
I think people agitating to leave and eventually setting an ultimatum works, and what people do already.
Perhaps we can enshrine the day Twitter was sold to Musk as Exodus day, and agitate for it every year as a coordination point for switching?
@douginamug That's a good idea for some communities - those that had or have a relationship to Twitter. Ultimately, what will work is entirely dependent on each particular community. That's the reason why I'm thinking less in broad one-directional communication campaigns and more in structures that use the "coordination problem" inherent in each community. @abekonge
Thanks so much for sharing, @douginamug! Actually, the workshop has a dedicated website, now!
@tommi Beautiful. I shared it here in Danish: https://forum.fedi.dk/topic/134/strikke-internettet-sammen @douginamug @abekonge
Wowww! Thank youuu, @malte!
@tommi wow, very nice! Really enjoyed reading through the history bit. Here are some optional text alterations you might want to consider:
"In a century thorn by global wars" -> thorn -> torn
"60 millions" -> 60 million (same for "2 billions")
"initial sparkle" -> spark
"fagocitation" -> digestion/consumption/etc
@tommi also, although you seem like someone who doesn't have so much time for book suggestions, I think you would very much enjoy a lot of "Governable spaces" by Nathan Schneider, who is actually here in fedi.
He links the capitlization of the internet to the monopolization -> feudalism and argues that the implicitly feudalistic behaviors we've been learning there are significantly responsible for the global rise in authoritarianism...
@douginamug Daaamn, you got me… You’re right. Unfortunately I am reading very little recently…
Nevertheless, some friends suggested me to read this book already, it is absolutely getting higher and higher in my reading list!
Thanks a lot!
Thank you very much, @douginamug!
I just fixed all the typos.