Werd I/O

I was tagged in a fairly critical SocialHub post about the Social Web Foundation launch announcement. I wasn’t in a position to add to the conversation then, but I’ve been thinking about it all week.

Before I dive further, a reminder: I am not an employee or founder of the Social Web Foundation. I am in touch with the founders and have been an unpaid advisor, but I can’t and don’t speak for it. This post is mine alone, and doesn’t necessarily reflect anyone else’s opinions or ideas. I also haven’t vetted or previewed it with anyone.

There are three main criticisms I’ve seen of the Social Web Foundation:

• Meta is a partner
• It’s called The Social Web Foundation but is focused on ActivityPub, ignoring AT Protocol, Nostr, and other decentralized social web protocols that are emerging elsewhere
• It’s focused on substantially growing the Fediverse, which is not something everyone wants

I believe they’re interrelated, and that these differences can be overcome.

Meta enters the chat

Perhaps the biggest red flag to critics is Meta’s presence as one of the SWF’s thirteen launch partners. Many consider it to be an extremely negative force on the web. Its presence is certainly divisive. I’ve been a critic of its Facebook product in particular since its inception: a company that imposes its centralized view of the world on the communications of its billions of users, and in the process has caused real harms.

Those harms include potential mental health and social media addiction effects in teenagers, failing to protect LGBTQ users, and more — up to and including enabling a genocide.

The last claim might seem outlandish, but it’s real. As Harvard Law School’s Systemic Justice Project pointed out:

Scholars, reporters, and United Nations investigators agree that the social media giant played a role in an explosion of ethnic conflict in 2017 that led to the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands Rohingya Muslims in Northern Myanmar.

Given this, the argument goes, why would anyone — particularly an organization trying to build the future of the social web — even consider working with Meta? Doesn’t its presence as a partner taint the work of the Foundation?

As the writer, researcher, and community lead Erin Kissane has pointed out:

I think it’s unwise to assume that an organization that has demonstrably and continuously made antisocial and sometimes deadly choices on behalf of billions of human beings and allowed its products to be weaponized by covert state-level operations behind multiple genocides and hundreds (thousands? tens of thousands?) of smaller persecutions, all while ducking meaningful oversight, lying about what they do and know, and treating their core extraction machines as fait-accompli inevitabilities that mustn’t be governed except in patently ineffective ways will be a good citizen after adopting a new, interoperable technical structure.

These profoundly negative impacts are possible because it is one of the most prominent — potentially the most prominent — platform owner on the internet. Around four billion users use one of Meta’s products every month; that’s half all the humans on earth, or around 75% of all the people in the world aged 15 or older. Arguably no platform should ever be allowed to become this big or influential (can any government claim to have this level of reach or insight into this many people?). Still, at least for now, here it is.

For many people, Meta is the internet. This clearly doesn’t absolve aiding a genocide, throwing an election, or thwarting academic research, but it also makes Meta a platform owner that’s hard to ignore.

Meta sits in a position of influence over the social web. Threads, its fairly recent Twitter-like platform, is rolling out support for the ActivityPub standard that underlies the Fediverse, so it is poised to also be influential there. Once Threads supports the Fediverse bidirectionally, it will easily be the largest social platform on the network. It will consequently have an enormous amount of influence on how the network evolves, regardless of its participation in the Social Web Foundation.

What is a successful Fediverse?

Meta’s involvement and potential dominance inevitably raises the question: What kind of future do we want for the Fediverse? Whether we focus on technical interoperability or grassroots social activism, the answer to this question will shape how we approach growth, inclusivity, and the role of large corporations in the decentralized web.

If you see the Fediverse as a way to interoperate between social networks, such that a user on one platform can communicate with a user on another, you might welcome a large tech company supporting the standard (a bit like one might have welcomed a company to standards-based HTML a generation ago). If, on the other hand, you see the Fediverse as an antidote to technology corporations or a movement that is more about a collaborative grassroots movement than pure technical interoperability — a sort of work of activism — you might be quite alarmed.

These mindsets are analogous to Evan Prodromou’s Big Fedi / Small Fedi dichotomy, but I’d like to apply a slightly different lens.

If your model of the Fediverse is an interoperable standard that underpins all social networks:

• All parties should focus on a single technical standard in order ensure everyone can interoperate and the network can grow.
• The focus should be on onboarding, education, and developer experience.
• Growth is paramount. The goal is to bring the whole world in.
• Having the creator of the biggest social network join is an opportunity.
• The end state is likely a handful of very large social networks, followed by a significant long tail of small ones.

For ease of reference, let’s call this the growth Fediverse.

If your model of the Fediverse is a social movement intentionally set apart from corporate social media:

• A plurality of underlying protocols is allowable and maybe even desirable: the important thing is the support of grassroots communities outside the usual bounds of the tech industry.
• The focus should be on equity, community dynamics, relationships, and movement-building in service of community.
• Preserving the values of the existing community is paramount. The rest of the world can stay away; there’s no need for growth.
• The presence of the largest corporate social media vendor is inherently a threat.
• The end state is likely a collection of small, interoperable communities united by their desire for an alternative to “big tech”.

Let’s call this one the movement Fediverse.

Both models of the Fediverse clearly exist. I’m hardly the first to have discussed them, but the Social Web Foundation announcement has re-ignited the conversation.

Very clearly, the Foundation is closer to the first model than the second. As such, people who don’t care for that model have accused it of being an agent of oligarchy; of doing harm by partnering with Meta; of using the term “social web” while focusing solely on ActivityPub.

A false binary

The thing is, the lines between these two paths are blurry. It’s not necessarily an either-or. The priority for the first is growth of the network and a large, interoperable social web; the priority of the second is small, pro-social communities that exist outside of usual tech industry dynamics. Someone might well feel that the way to get to small, pro-social communities is as a by-product of interoperability, just as not everything on the web itself is corporate even though partners to the W3C body that defines web standards include Google and Amazon.

Some of the things that the movement Fediverse wants are intrinsically important to the growth Fediverse. You can’t grow a giant social network without caring about community safety, for example; over the two years since he acquired Twitter, Elon Musk has ably demonstrated that most users don’t want to stick around on a platform where they don’t feel safe. Community standards are therefore very important to any network that seeks to grow and retain users. Usability and accessibility are similarly vital: what use is a movement that is exclusionary to less-technical people, or, say, the visually-impaired? Any healthy network needs to support diverse voices and ensure that those authors are welcome. The list of shared values goes on.

But there are also undeniable differences. Hanging the needs of an anti-corporate social movement on a technology is a big ask. I’m not critical of the values of the people who do — I largely share them — but I don’t think you can reasonably expect everybody involved in a technology to have the same ideals.

Like any community, the movement Fediverse also has areas where it, too, could benefit from introspection and growth in order to live up to its own values. Some parts of the community have struggled with inclusivity, particularly when onboarding marginalized users who wished to discuss systemic injustice openly. As Marcia X recounted in Logic(s):

What took me aback regarding the fediverse is that my networks were mostly “leftists” and self-proclaimed radical thinkers regarding race, ableism, gender, patriarchy, sexuality, et cetera, and yet what I was being exposed to was a lot of naiveté or hostility for questioning whiteness as a basis for many people’s takes or approaches to these subject matters. And if I were to question or push back on their whiteness, I was often accused of being biased myself.

While many people in the movement are already working hard to address these issues, more can be done to ensure that all users feel safe, heard, and respected. In some cases, the movement Fediverse has fallen short when it comes to fully supporting the lived experiences of new users, especially those from marginalized groups. However, there is clear potential — and growing momentum — to improve this. By continuing to evolve and actively listen to new voices, the movement Fediverse can better embody the values of inclusivity and social justice that it stands for. But there is work to do.

In other words, it’s important to recognize that both groups have challenges to address. Each needs to continue working to ensure decisions are made inclusively, with an eye on the safety of users and the accessibility of communities. By recognizing these shared goals, there’s a real opportunity for mutual learning and growth.

Each has much to gain from each other. One doesn’t need to be a subscriber to the growth Fediverse to enjoy gains from user experience research, technology onboarding, and outreach conducted there. Similarly, one doesn’t need to subscribe to the ideals of the movement Fediverse to feel the benefit of their community dynamics and social goals. In fact, there may be a productive tension between the two that keeps each of their worst impulses in check. One might consider the movement Fediverse to be akin to a labor movement: a way for users to organize and advocate for stronger, safer, and more progressive community design. In turn, the growth Fediverse could be a check against becoming too insular and leaving the rest of the world out in the cold.

While the movement and growth Fediverse may have differing approaches, both share a commitment to user safety, inclusivity, and decentralization. The question is not whether these goals are shared, but how best to achieve them.

Moving forward

Just as unions create productive tensions in businesses that create better working conditions and higher productivity, I think the discussion between the movement Fediverse and the growth Fediverse has the potential to push the open social web further than might otherwise have been possible.

The checks and balances produced by an open debate between the two approaches are particularly useful when considering partners like Meta. The productive tension between these two visions could ensure that while larger platforms like Meta are held accountable, the values of grassroots communities — safety, inclusivity, and equity, for example — are not sacrificed in the pursuit of growth.

It’s not a foregone conclusion that Meta will dominate how the Social Web Foundation is run, but it’s also not a foregone conclusion that it won’t. The Social Web Foundation clearly states in its mission statement (emphasis mine):

A Fediverse that is controlled only by one company isn’t really a Fediverse at all. We think a productive, creative and healthy Fediverse needs multiple providers, none of whom dominate the space.

The goal is a multipolar federated social web. I think a large part of the solution is not to say this, but to show it: conduct meetings and make decisions with as much transparency as possible, so as to prove that Meta (and any other partner) is not dominant. By structurally providing as much sunlight as possible, allowing feedback and comment, and repeatedly demonstrating that this feedback is being considered and acted on where appropriate, both the potential harms and concerns from the movement Fediverse community can be reduced. Just as source code that is open to scrutiny is auditable and verifiable, decision-making process that are open to sunlight can be held accountable. Public meeting notes, decision documents, and so on, all help to support accountability.

In any event, the Social Web Foundation doesn’t need to be the foundation to cover all views of what the Fediverse should be. It’s a foundation that is going to try and do great work to expand the Fediverse. From its mission statement:

We believe that increased use of the Fediverse has the potential to make all of our online social experiences better, as well as to create lots of new opportunities for creation and self-expression. So we’re committed to growing the number of people using the Fediverse.

As Evan Prodromou said in that SocialHub thread abut people who don’t feel the Foundation represents them:

We want a united social web, using a single protocol for internetwork communication. I’d compare email, where proprietary LAN email protocols like Microsoft Exchange are gatewayed into the formal standard protocol SMTP. […] The SWF is not mandatory. People who want to do other things for the Fediverse should definitely do so. But I do want to extend the invitation for people who are interested to reach out.

This doesn’t have to be one size fits all. It’s worth considering what organizing more concretely for the movement Fediverse looks like, and how it might intersect and act as a check on the growth Fediverse.

It’s understandable that some in the movement Fediverse feel uncomfortable with large corporate platforms, particularly those with a history of past harms, joining the network. However, engaging with these platforms — rather than dismissing their involvement outright — may offer a unique opportunity to influence their practices and ensure they align with the values of the community. Constructive engagement with Meta and other large platforms could offer a unique opportunity for the movement Fediverse to influence how these entities engage with the broader social web, ensuring they uphold the values of safety, inclusivity, and equity.

Likewise, ignoring the concerns of the movement Fediverse is not wise: these are valid ideas rooted in real experiences. The tech industry carries real systemic inequalities that go all the way back to its origins in military funding. Addressing those inequities is a prerequisite to the web reaching its potential as a way for everyone in the world to connect and learn from each other. Companies like Meta, as I’ve explained at length above, have committed real harms as a byproduct of their priorities, business models, and funding partners. Grassroots communities that practice intentionality, activism, mutual aid, and radical equity have a lot to offer, and in many ways are models for how the world should be.

The movement Fediverse’s emphasis on mutual aid, radical equity, and intentionality offers invaluable lessons for how the larger Fediverse — and even corporate actors — could operate. Practices like community-driven moderation, transparent governance, and prioritizing marginalized voices could help ensure that the Fediverse grows without losing its soul.

Each group is approaching the problem in good faith. In the end, it’s up to all of us to ensure that the future of the web remains decentralized, inclusive, and safe. We must continue to engage, advocate, and, most importantly, listen to one another as we navigate and build this space together. The Fediverse is made of pluralities: of implementations, communities, vendors, and visions of the future. That’s at the heart of its beauty and its opportunity. The software interoperates; so should we.

I think there’s more work to be done to explore print as a modern product to support great writing and journalism. Lots has been said about its death — but comparatively little about its potential to live on in new forms.

I think print has a lot of life left in it: particularly if we overcome the idea of preserving the exact form it’s taken in the past and consider what a more modern, reconsidered print product might look like.

There’s a lot to be said for reading on paper. One of my more recent indulgences has been a daily subscription to The Financial Times, which on weekdays is a sober paper that reports the news fairly objectively. On weekends it’s a different beast: in particular it includes a magazine pull-out called How to Spend It that is apparently aimed at the worst people on earth and is generally indistinguishable from satire.

The Financial Times has been publishing since 1888, but some endeavors are much newer. Speaking of indistinguishable from satire, I subscribed to The Onion’s print edition, now it has been bought from its private equity owner. It’s been fun seeing it adopt similar membership strategies to other, more “serious” publications. Most exciting among those is its resumed print edition, which is an old idea given a new spin:

“I think for the same reason that 18-year-old kids are buying Taylor Swift on vinyl,” Jordan LaFlure, The Onion’s executive editor also told the Times, “we can introduce those same kids to the notion that a print publication is a much richer way to consume media.”

It’s not obvious to me that a similar strategy couldn’t work for other publications — or even as a digest of independent publications that work together. Would I buy a subscription to a paper edition of independent journalism across various topics? Absolutely I would, and I don’t think I’m alone. Think of it as a lo-fi RSS reader or a retro Apple News: articles I care about from around the web in a form factor that looks more like The New Yorker (or The Onion).

This product could take several forms. It could combine an algorithmic component — here are the writers I care about — with a more human-driven curatorial component from editors who want to highlight interesting journalism from sources the reader might not have encountered yet. Or it could be a purely editorial product with no algorithmic component: one size fits all, for every reader. Or you could subscribe to personalized editions with different human editors who get a cut of subscriptions for putting it all together. (A monthly tech periodical organized by Casey Newton or Molly White? Take my money.)

Publications like ProPublica (my current employer) and The 19th (which I’ve worked for previously) produce content that is more long-form journalism than breaking news, which is highly suitable for reading in a collected periodical. They also make their content freely available via a Creative Commons license, meaning that, technically, anyone could put this together. But it would clearly be better in partnership with newsrooms, with revenue and subscriber information flowing back to them in exchange for letting their journalism be included.

This isn’t a traditional startup: it’s hard for me to see how this product would enjoy the rapid growth or high valuations which justify venture investment. But it’s potentially a really interesting small business. If the numbers work out, it could also potentially be a fascinating add-on product for a service like Medium. There’s user and market research to be done here, but it’s possible that the decline of legacy print products does not necessarily mean that new print products won’t be successful.

The act of reading on paper feels different to sitting in front of a screen. Maybe I’m getting old, but I like sitting at the dining room table, leafing through print. It is an old school product that is a little like vinyl, but it also feels like I’m using my brain a bit differently. I’d love to do more of it. In a world where everything is digital, maybe a thoughtfully curated print product could be exactly what we need to slow down and engage more deeply. Or maybe not, but I think it would be cool.

I’d love to hear what you think. Am I alone in preferring an offline, analogue, tactile reading experience? Is there something here, or is the future of media entirely, irrevocably digital?

More coverage of the Social Web Foundation has been rolling in today. (See my coverage of the announcement over here.)

The New Stack:

The fediverse has been a critical development in the open web over the past several years, since most of the social media landscape is dominated by centralized platforms — including Meta. If we want the open web to not just survive, but perhaps thrive again one day, we should all (hopefully including the father of the web) get behind the fediverse and support the Social Web Foundation.

WeDistribute:

“I wish I would’ve started it five years ago,” Evan explains in a call, “We’re seeing growth of ActivityPub in the commercial sector, we want to help guide that work, especially for devs that don’t know how to engage with the Fediverse, or the work that happens in private spaces. As we’re seeing a lot of growth, it’s important to help push that growth forward, we’re really filling in the crack no other organization is doing.”

TechCrunch:

Part of the group’s efforts will be focused on making the fediverse more user-friendly. Though Mastodon offers a service that functions much like Twitter/X, its decentralized nature — meaning there are multiple servers to choose from — makes getting started confusing and difficult for less technical users. Then, much like X, there’s the cold start problem of finding interesting people to follow.

The W3C:

We are happy to share that today the Social Web Foundation launched with a mission to help the fediverse to grow healthy, multi-polar, and financially viable. We are looking forward to continuing to support the work that [Evan Prodromou, Tom Coates, and Mallory Knodel] are planning in the new non-profit foundation for expanding and improving ActivityPub and the fediverse. We are delighted that to the Foundation will be becoming a W3C Member.

Vivaldi:

The Fediverse reminds us of the early days of the Web. We are competing against silos and corporate interests, using a W3C-based open standard and a distributed solution. It’s great that social networking companies are supporting the Fediverse, and Vivaldi is pleased to support Social Web Foundation so that we can once again have a town square free of algorithms and corporate control.

Independent Federated Trust & Safety:

ActivityPub has enabled thousands of platforms to communicate seamlessly across the Fediverse. This framework encourages a healthier online experience by supporting diversity of thought and content while redistributing governance back to the communities that can best serve their members. In an era where centralised networks dominate, the SWF’s commitment to open standards represents a renewed opportunity for a democratic and inclusive web.

And then Evan Prodromou wrote his own post on the launch:

Many people have ideas about what the Fediverse needs to be bigger, safer, and easier to use. But the solutions they propose fall between the cracks of any one implementer or service. We want the SWF to be the entity that takes on those jobs.

Not everyone agrees that the Fediverse needs to be available to more people. That’s OK. And not everyone is going to be comfortable with the mix of commercial and Open Source implementers plus civil society groups that form the support for the SWF. That’s OK too. Hopefully, our work will still benefit you.

Exciting times for the web.

I’m extraordinarily excited about the launch of the Social Web Foundation, which has been created to promote and support the growth of the Fediverse: the interoperable social network powered by the ActivityPub protocol.

Users of services on the Fediverse can follow, share, and interact with each other, regardless of which service each one is using. The most famous Fediverse platform is Mastodon, but there are many more participants, including Threads, Flipboard, and Ghost.

From the announcement:

[…] Advocates of this increased platform choice say it will bring more individual control, more innovation, and a healthier social media experience. But there is work to do: journalism, activism, and the public square remain in a state of uncertain dissonance and privacy, safety and agency remain important concerns for anyone participating in a social network.

The Foundation’s founding members are Mallory Knodel, the former CTO of the Center for Democracy and Technology; Evan Prodromou, one of the creators of ActivityPub and its current editor (who just published the canonical book on the topic); and Tom Coates, a product designer and founder who was one of the earliest bloggers and has been involved in many things that have been good on the web. They become the Executive Director, Research Director, and Product Director respectively.

Excitingly, the Foundation’s partners are a who’s who of companies doing great work on the web today. Those include Automattic, Ghost, Flipboard, Fastly, Medium, and Mastodon itself. Meta is also a backer, in an indication of its continued investment in the Fediverse, moving away from the walled garden strategy that it used with Facebook and Instagram for decades.

In a conversation with Richard MacManus over on The New Stack, Evan explained the Foundation’s relationship with existing standards organizations like the W3C:

“W3C as a standards organization mostly does coordinating the work of a number of different groups to make protocols […] So we’ll still be participating in the W3C — we’re going to become a member organization of the W3C.”

Prodromou added that the SWF will take on the role of advocacy and user education, which is typically outside of the W3C’s purview for standards work.

My opinion: this is the future of the social web. Every new service and platform that contains social features — which is most of them — will support the ActivityPub protocol within the next few years. Service owners can use it to easily avoid the “cold start” problem when creating new networks, and to plug their existing platforms into a ready-made network of hundreds of millions of people. Publishers will use it to reach their audiences more easily. And it’s where the global conversation will be held.

When I was building social platforms in the 2000s, this is what we dreamed of. Elgg, the open source social networking platform which launched my career, was intended to be the center of a federated social web. Although we made some crucial steps towards open data protocols and embracing open standards, we didn’t get there. I’m beyond thrilled that the Fediverse and ActivityPub exist, and that there are so many robust platforms that support it. The Social Web Foundation is another great step towards building the social web that we all deserve.

As Casey Newton published just yesterday about the future of his publication, Platformer:

One way I hope it will evolve is to become part of the fediverse: the network of federated sites and apps that are built with interoperability in mind. The fediverse is built on top of protocols, not platforms, which offers us a chance to decentralize power on the internet and built a more stable foundation for media and social apps.

The Social Web Foundation’s existence as an advocacy, research, and development organization is another key step towards making that happen. But to be clear, its role is in support: each one of its partner organizations has already taken concrete steps towards supporting ActivityPub, and the movement is well underway.

Check out the Social Web Foundation and its projects at its website.

Updated: Read more coverage of the launch.

Yesterday the Internet Archive lost its appeal in the digital lending case it’s been fighting for the last few years.

In March 2020, the Internet Archive, a San Francisco-based nonprofit, launched a program called the National Emergency Library, or NEL. Library closures caused by the pandemic had left students, researchers, and readers unable to access millions of books, and the Internet Archive has said it was responding to calls from regular people and other librarians to help those at home get access to the books they needed.

It was a useful program, and the archival has merit, but publishers argued that the Archive overstepped, and the courts eventually agreed.

Regardless of the merits of the case, I believe the Internet Archive is an obvious public good, and an outcome like this has the potential to do it real harm. This opinion led me to post an offhand comment on Threads:

People who follow me tend to also be at the intersection of tech and media, so I figured extra context wasn’t needed. They were on it. And I figured that anyone who wasn’t clued in probably didn’t care and could just keep scrolling.

Which, uh, is not how it went down.

The Threads algorithm apparently surfaced my post in the feeds of a bunch of other people with a wholly different set of interests, who were — inexplicably to me — incredibly angry that I hadn’t provided any further context.

A whole bunch of people apparently forgot they can, you know, just Google something:

But the comments that really surprised me were the ones that accused me of engagement farming. I’ve never received these before, and it made me wonder about the underlying assumptions. Why would this be engagement farming? Why would someone do this? Why would they assume that about me?

It might have something to do with Meta’s creators program, which pays people to post on the platform. The idea is that popular influencers will lure more users to the platform and it can therefore grow more quickly.

The amounts are not small: a single popular post can earn as much as $5,000. It’s an invite-only program that I am not a part of; it looks like you need to be an existing Instagram influencer to be asked. While I’m a lot of things, that is very far from being one of them.

Because the program is not available to all, and because it’s unlabeled, it’s not clear who is a part of it and who isn’t. So anyone could be trying to farm engagement in order to make some extra money. And because anyone could be, it becomes the default assumption for a lot of people. If you had the opportunity to make an extra $5,000 for a social media post, why wouldn’t you? And as a result, trust in peoples’ underlying motivations has disintegrated. Everyone must be just trying to get as many views on their posts as possible.

Over time, this has the potential to become pernicious, eroding trust in everything. If X has fake news, Threads is assumed to have fake views: engagement by any means necessary.

To be clear, if I was a part of the program — which, again, I’m not — I wouldn’t do anything differently, except to clearly announce that I was part of the program. I’m not an entertainer, an influencer, or a public figure. Like most of us, I’m just some person posting offhand thoughts into a social media app; anything else feels, honestly, disingenuous and like far too much work. But now I understand how fast trust has eroded, I wonder if the ability to build authentic communities on the platform is hanging on by a thread.