Werd I/O

[OpenStreetMap]

Meta has contributed 178,710 Euros (an oddly specific number!) to OpenStreetMap.

On one level: hooray for people contributing to open source.

On another: Meta has a $1.5 Trillion market cap and uses OpenStreetMap in multiple applications. To be fair, it also provides direct non-monetary contributions, but regardless, when all is said and done, it's a bargain. Arguably, the open source project deserves much more. And it's really sad that a donation at this level from a major beneficiary of the project is so exciting that it merits a blog post.

#Technology

[Link]

[Ernie Smith at Tedium]

Is the ongoing Matt Mullenweg / Automattic / WP Engine drama really about private equity undermining the open source WordPress project? In his summary of the latest developments, Ernie doesn't think so:

"But I don’t think that’s really what’s been happening here. I think the concern, if we’re really being honest, reflects frustration that Mullenweg has struggled to make Automattic into the firm that WP Engine has become—the first choice for businesses and agencies looking to get a site online. His actions since September—which, mind you, included building a website promoting the number of WP Engine users that had left that platform—have only come to underline that. And despite his claims otherwise, his actions have clearly spoken in the other direction."

I still think there's another shoe here. I've published a few times about this saga, and each time I've heard from people who have been involved in WordPress for a long time who think this is very much in line with Mullenweg's long term behavior and personality. But I still have to wonder if it's not so much him worrying about Automattic's progress in this market as his board and investors. If they're suddenly putting pressure on him to improve results, that in turn would explain why he's being so erratic, and how this appeared to come out of the blue.

I don't know. I don't have any inside here. It's so weird, and so obviously counter-productive. The most recent injunction is the prelude to a full court case; let's see what happens there. I wouldn't like to make predictions.

#Technology

[Link]

[Erin Griffith at the New York Times]

I've been using Mozi for a little while and like it quite a bit:

"Mr. Williams views Mozi as an attempt to return to social media’s original intention, which was about interacting with people you already knew. Over the years, social media companies evolved into just plain media — a place for watching videos from influencers and professional entertainers, reading links to news stories, sharing memes or impulse shopping via highly targeted ads. Many of the apps are optimized to get users hooked on an endless scroll of new information."

Here I've got to offer a disclaimer: I used to work with Ev Williams at Medium, and have chatted with him a number of times since leaving that position. I'm also friends with a few people in that circle (who were either involved in early Twitter, early Medium, or both). I like him and think he has good instincts about what the web might be missing for regular people. I also know and like a founder of Dopplr, which apps like this all owe a debt of gratitude to.

For all my hyping of decentralized social media, the underlying tech isn't the thing: it's the use case and the way it builds relationships between people and communities. What I like about Mozi is that it doesn't attempt to horde your engagement or intermediate your relationships: it uses your device's existing (inherently-decentralized) messaging tools and address book to stay in touch but adds a kind of presence layer over the top.

Also, this:

"Consumer apps like Mozi are out of step with the tech zeitgeist, which has centered most recently on artificial intelligence."

Honestly, thank God. And I'm grateful that the team is talking about monetizing through premium features that provide extra value, rather than advertising or selling to data brokers.

In other words: hooray for a good old-fashioned app that tries to behave well and add value.

#Technology

[Link]

[Daniel Appelquist and Yves Lafon at the W3C]

These ethical web principles that guide the ongoing development of the platform are great. And this is spot on:

"The web is a fundamental part of our lives, shaping how we work, connect, and learn. We understand that with this profound impact comes the responsibility to ensure that the web serves as a platform that benefits people and delivers positive social outcomes. As we continue to advance the web platform, we must therefore consider the consequences of our work."

I feel like this is missing a statement on inclusivity (beyond "the web is for all people"), but I imagine that might have been difficult or contentious to include.

But in particular, enforcing the web as a platform that does not lead to societal harm, supports privacy and freedom of expression, and enhances individuals' control and power feels like an important statement. Particularly right now.

I guess my question is: how does this come into play in practice in the day-to-day work of the W3C? How does the W3C intend to seed these ideas outside of its walls? Those practical considerations feel important, too.

#Technology

[Link]

[Emma Roth at The Verge]

I think this was almost inevitable:

"On Tuesday, a California District Court judge ordered Automattic to stop blocking WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org resources and interfering with its plugins."

Automattic is going to file a counterclaim, pointing out that the ruling was made without the benefit of discovery and without what it believes are the full set of facts. It believes it can still win in a full trial.

I still think there's more to this story than meets the eye. Either Matt Mullenweg was responding to some kind of outside pressure (for example, from his investors and board), or he basically went nuts. It could be a little from column A and a little from column B. It's even possible that there's some bombshell revelation forthcoming about WP Engine (although I have to say it's quite an outside chance). But I wish we could scratch the surface and go deeper. Maybe one day we'll learn more.

#Technology

[Link]

[Lindsey Lionheart O'Brien at Mozilla Distilled]

This is a rebrand and reorientation for Mozilla:

"Mozilla isn’t just another tech company — we’re a global crew of activists, technologists and builders, all working to keep the internet free, open and accessible. For over 25 years, we’ve championed the idea that the web should be for everyone, no matter who you are or where you’re from. Now, with a brand refresh, we’re looking ahead to the next 25 years (and beyond), building on our work and developing new tools to give more people the control to shape their online experiences."

As I've argued in the past, Mozilla is best placed to support other peoples' work. I wrote last month:

"I believe Mozilla is best placed to achieve this goal by explicitly fostering an ecosystem of open, accessible software that promotes user independence, privacy, and safety. It should be a facilitator, supporter, and convener through which projects that promote these values thrive."

This seems to be a part of this refocused mission (and a continuation of a statement of intention that dates from 2023). As Lindsey Lionheart O'Brien writes in this update:

"We back people and projects that move technology, the internet and AI in the right direction. In a time of privacy breaches, AI challenges and misinformation, this transformation is all about rallying people to take back control of their time, individual expression, privacy, community and sense of wonder."

Who can argue with that? We need help, and if Mozilla is serious about this mission, I'm all for it. We just need to hold them to it.

#Technology

[Link]

[Mathew Ingram]

As Mathew Ingram points out, Australia's new social media law is a well-intentioned error.

He quotes an Australian human rights commission dissent which points out that:

"For children in marginalised, remote, or vulnerable situations, social media offers a lifeline. It connects children with disability to peers, resources, and communities they may not otherwise access. It helps LGBTQIA+ youth find acceptance and solidarity. It can improve access to healthcare, particularly for children seeking mental health support."

This and: the harms may be overstated. Is social media leading teens to harm, or is it giving vulnerable teens a voice? The answer may be more complicated than some of the advocates who led to the ban might believe.

Other experts agree that the risks may outweigh the benefits, isolating lonely kids from help and community that they might otherwise receive. While well-intentioned, that seems like a bad thing to do.

#Technology

[Link]

[Joseph Cox at 404 Media]

This is good to see:

"The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced sweeping action against some of the most important companies in the location data industry on Tuesday, including those that power surveillance tools used by a wide spread of U.S. law enforcement agencies and demanding they delete data related to certain sensitive areas like health clinics and places of worship."

Gravy and its subsidiary Venntel are two of the largest companies used to sell location information to law enforcement. The FTC is not banning the practice outright - but it's requiring that information relating to sensitive locations is removed. That includes "medical facilities, religious organizations, correctional facilities, labor union offices, schools and childcare facilities, domestic abuse and homeless support centers, shelters for refugee or immigrant populations, and military installations."

Of course, many other locations not covered by this ban are also sensitive, depending on context, and it would be far better to not sell this information at all. It's also highly likely that other service providers are selling this information under the radar.

Still, it's a start.

#Technology

[Link]

[Sam Biddle at The Intercept]

In the face of Trump's promise to conduct mass deportations, The Intercept set out to find out who in tech would be collaborators:

"To see whether corporate America will support Trump’s promised anti-immigrant operation, The Intercept reached out to data and technology companies that hold immense quantities of personal information or sell analytic software useful to an agency like ICE. The list includes obscure data brokers that glean intimate personal details from advertising streams, mainstream cellular phone providers, household-name social networks, predictive policing firms, and more."

Only four companies responded. Of those, two said they would; one said they would not; and the other (Thomson Reuters Clear) hedged with a dodgy answer that suggests the door is open.

#Technology

[Link]

[Joel Gascoigne]

I always appreciate Joel's updates.

"Early on, my dream was just to create a tool that made it easy to Tweet consistently, build it for myself and others, and make enough money to cover my living expenses and go full-time on it. The number for me to be able to work on it full-time was £1,200 per month, and that felt almost out of reach in the beginning. Today, Buffer generates $1.65 million per month, serves 59,000 customers, and enables fulfilling work for 72 people."

It's a tool I personally pay for and use every day (although it runs behind the scenes for me, as part of automations I've set up for myself). But even before then, Joel's build in public approach felt meaningful - it resonated as a way I wanted to work and do business, too.

Although there are inevitably sensitive topics that I'm sure Joel hasn't been able to talk about, I've been impressed with this transparency, which has held through good times and bad. It's a model to learn from, and one that also leads to longevity:

"When I really stop to take a step back, I feel very lucky that I've been able to do this for fourteen years. It's a long time in any sense. In tech and social media it feels like almost a lifetime already."

It is. And I love it. Kudos.

#Technology

[Link]

[Tyler Fisher]

Tyler Fisher has built a Nuzzel-like service for Bluesky:

"Sill connects to your Bluesky and Mastodon accounts and aggregates the most popular links in your network. (Yes, a little like Nuzzel.)"

It's a personal project for now but there's more to come:

"I built Sill as a passion project, but I'd also like to keep it sustainable, which means making plans for revenue. While I am committed to always keeping the basic Sill web client free, once we exit the public beta period (likely early next year), I plan to launch some paid plans for Sill with additional features."

I've been using it for a while and have found it to be quite useful. If you're a Bluesky user, you can sign up at Sill.social.

#Technology

[Link]

[Wes Davis at The Verge]

Interesting announcement from the European Commission:

"The European Union says Twitter alternative Bluesky violates the EU Digital Services Act rules around information disclosure, reports Reuters. But since Bluesky isn’t yet big enough to be considered a “very large online platform” under the DSA, the regulator says it can’t regulate Bluesky the way it does X or Threads."

All platforms doing business in the EU need to have a dedicated page on their website that enumerates how many users they have in the EU. Bluesky isn't big enough for the DSA to actually be enforceable yet, but this raises interesting questions about how they would do this - or how any decentralized system would go about this. Will Bluesky need to start tracking location, or even KYC information? That doesn't seem desirable.

Whereas Bluesky's architecture lends itself to a few big players, led by the Bluesky Social corporation, Mastodon is made up of many, much smaller communities. These individually will never be big enough to be regulated under the DSA. If that model becomes predominant, will it in turn trigger DSA changes that take the fediverse into account? Or I wonder if there can be another path forward where a platform just has to demonstrate that it meets EU data standards for all users, and then doesn't need to track them?

#Technology

[Link]

[Dan Milmo at The Guardian]

The Department of Justice has filed its proposed remedies to Google's illegal monopoly over search services:

"The proposals filed to a Washington federal court include the forced sale of the Chrome browser and a five-year ban from entering the browser market; a block on paying third parties such as Apple to make Google the default search engine on their products and divestment of the Android mobile operating system if the initial proposals do not work."

The court also wants everyone to have a way to block their content from being used as AI training data - and for the search index itself to be opened up.

The judge will decide next year. I have to assume there will be intense negotiations about which remedies actually get implemented - and I don't hold out much hope for strong enforcement under the Trump administration (particularly one where Elon Musk and JD Vance are participants). But it's a hint of what strong, capable antitrust enforcement could look like.

#Technology

[Link]

[Khadija Alam and Russell Brandom at Rest of World]

Mobile internet subscriber growth is significantly slowing globally:

"From 2015 to 2021, the survey consistently found over 200 million coming online through mobile devices around the world each year. But in the last two years, that number has dropped to 160 million. Rest of World analysis of that data found that a number of developing countries are plateauing in the number of mobile internet subscribers. That suggests that in countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Mexico, the easiest populations to get online have already logged on, and getting the rest of the population on mobile internet will continue to be a challenge."

Many services - Facebook included - were able to grow rapidly by hitching a ride on the growth of the internet itself. It looks like that rapid growth is coming to an end, which will have implications for consumer startups down the line.

It will also fundamentally change the way we relate to the internet. It used to be that the majority of internet users were new: correspondingly, there was a shine to just being connected that overshadowed shortcomings. But we're finding ourselves in an era where most of us have been able to sit with the internet for a while, sometimes for generations. That inevitably leads to a more nuanced relationship with it - and in turn, more detailed thoughts around regulation, policy, and the kinds of applications we want to be using in the long term. That cultural change will be interesting to watch, and likely societally positive - but it will come with some downsides for tech companies and platforms.

#Technology

[Link]

[Joanna Chiu and Viola Zhou at Rest of World]

Tech companies like Microsoft and Google have, through their accelerators, supported startups that provide censorship and policing technologies in China. It's perhaps not a surprise that they've supported these endeavors - after all, startups look to find product/market fit in their regions - but it flies in the face of efforts they've made to appear to care about human rights.

I've been thinking about this a lot:

"Support for the companies through their startup incubator programs raises questions about the future of these initiatives, especially as Donald Trump prepares to take a second term as president."

We know that tech companies comply with authoritarian regimes when they try to do business there. There's a long history of that, from IBM colluding with the Nazis through Yahoo giving up the identities of bloggers to the Chinese authorities. What happens when their home turf becomes one? I don't think we can expect anything other than collaboration.

At this point, that's mostly speculation (beyond existing contracts with ICE, say) - but there's no doubt that surveillance and censorship have been used in China to squash dissent and commit human rights abuses. The tech companies who directly fund the infrastructure to do this are complicit, and should be publicly held as such.

#Technology

[Link]

[Renee Dudley, with research by Doris Burke, at ProPublica]

Security lapses in Microsoft's own products led to hacks that in turn pushed President Biden to ask for help from it and other tech companies to improve White House security. Microsoft saw it as an opportunity to lock the White House into its products.

Microsoft pledged to give $150M in technical services to the government to upgrade its security. But it wasn't altruistic:

"Microsoft’s seemingly straightforward commitment belied a more complex, profit-driven agenda, a ProPublica investigation has found. The proposal was, in fact, a calculated business maneuver designed to bring in billions of dollars in new revenue, box competitors out of lucrative government contracts and tighten the company’s grip on federal business."

The result may have created an illegal monopoly on government systems - and increased its susceptibility to future Microsoft flaws:

"Competition is not the only issue at stake. As Washington has deepened its relationship with Microsoft, congressional leaders have raised concerns about what they call a cybersecurity “monoculture” in the federal government. Some, like Wyden and Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Republican from Missouri, have blasted the Defense Department in particular for “doubling down on a failed strategy of increasing its dependence on Microsoft.”"

Monocultures are bad. It's hard to see how these kinds of toxic relationships don't get worse over the next four years.

#Technology

[Link]

[Sean Goedecke]

This is very good. It's advertised as a piece about shipping in big tech companies, but honestly, I think it's true of many smaller companies too. It's not true in the smallest startups or for organizations with certain kinds of engineering cultures - but I suspect they may be in the minority.

"What does it mean to ship? It does not mean deploying code or even making a feature available to users. Shipping is a social construct within a company. Concretely, that means that a project is shipped when the important people at your company believe it is shipped."

Software engineering isn't a technology business: it's a people business. You're building tools that solve real problems for real people, and you're doing it inside an organizational structure that is also made of real people. There's no way to get around this: unless the organization is exceptionally organized around engineering needs (which many small and medium tech companies are!), you will have to navigate these sorts of interpersonal dynamics.

This hits the nail on the head for just about everybody:

"I think a lot of engineers hold off on deploys essentially out of fear. If you want to ship, you need to do the exact opposite: you need to deploy as much as you can as early as possible, and you need to do the scariest changes as early as you can possibly do them."

It seems counterintuitive, but again: if your goal is to ship (and it probably should be), you need to focus on doing that.

#Technology

[Link]

[Signal]

Signal has improved its group call functionality pretty significantly:

"If you love group calls on Signal, but don’t want to create a group chat for every combination of your friends or colleagues, you’re in luck. Today we’re launching call links: Share a link with anyone on Signal and in just a tap or click they can join the call. No group chat required."

This is good news, and brings Signal in line with other videoconferencing software. These calls include hand raising, reply emoji, and the other functionality you'd expect to see elsewhere - while being end to end encrypted.

I'm hoping this is a prelude to even more group / workspace functionality. The blog post mentions that Signal's own meetings are Signal-powered (as they should be!), and it's a hop, skip, and a jump from there to powering internal chat with it, too.

This would be a game-changer for any organization that needs to maintain secure comms. It's also a good idea for anyone who conducts regular calls or chats in a group.

Signal is free and open source, is always end-to-end encrypted, and can be downloaded on every major platform.

#Technology

[Link]

[Bill Fitzgerald]

Bill Fitzgerald has updated his open source guide to personal privacy:

"Conversations about privacy and security often focus on technology and give scant attention to the human, non-technological factors that affect personal privacy and security. This post covers a range of concrete steps we can all take to regain control over what, when, and with whom we share."

I really appreciate the straightforwardness of the guide - these are things that everyone can do to help keep themselves safe. And because it's open source, the more eyes there are on it validating the information, the better the guide will get.

Some of the general advice is needfully pessimistic but doesn't always apply. For example, it talks about there not being an expectation of privacy on work devices, or using a work-provided VPN. That probably is generally true, but for example, in my role leading technology at ProPublica, I and others would absolutely flip a table if we decided to surveil our employees. (For one thing, that would be a terrible approach if we cared about keeping sources safe, which we obviously do.) So it's always worth checking in with your IT leadership to understand their concrete policy.

Regardless, I would feel comfortable sharing this verbatim. I'm grateful that Bill has released it under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, so there are opportunities to create designs for this guide and share them back to the community.

#Technology

[Link]

[Molly White]

Unsure what to do now? Molly White has some solid ways to get started helping:

""Many of us have looked back on historic events where people have bravely stood up against powerful adversaries and wondered, “what would I have done?” Now is your chance to find out. It did not just start with this election; it has been that time for a long time. If you’re just realizing it now, get your ass in gear. Make yourself proud.""

There are compelling suggestions here around protecting yourself; working to support press freedom and access to information; migrant rights; reproductive rights; trans rights. But more than that, the spirit of this post is that we should have a bias towards meaningful action.

#Technology

[Link]

[Heather Bryant]

Some good advice from Heather:

"One practical thing you can do in as much depth as you like, identify a particular area of information that you care about or feel is important and protect it. Whether it's critical public data, old abandoned websites, or niche community content that you think is worth preserving, the information is worth saving."

There is lots of practical advice in her piece: contributing to ArchiveTeam and to the End of Term Web Archive, downloading a copy of Wikipedia, and simply keeping a copy of useful information. I agree - particularly in a world where we're all so dependent on storing things in the cloud. The longevity of all of that information matters.

#Technology

[Link]

[Senator Ron Wyden at MSNBC]

Senator Wyden has long been a loud voice for surveillance reform and stronger data protections, so this op-ed isn't really a surprise - but it's still nice to see him weighing in here:

"Data brokers are selling the ability to track phones that visit abortion clinics and follow them back across state lines, all the way to their owners’ homes. All it takes for this kind of 24-hour surveillance is a credit card. Given the creepy enthusiasm with which MAGA government officials are inserting themselves into women’s health choices, these tracking tools present a pressing danger for women across the country."

As the Senator points out, data brokers are a clear danger to many peoples' safety, including women in a reproductive healthcare context. I think about this a lot in relation to journalists, whose personal information is often made available by these organizations and can be (let's be clear: absolutely is) used to threaten harm in retaliation for reporting on a story. And then, of course, brokers are often used as a way for law enforcement to bypass the need for a warrant: if someone's whereabouts or communications metadata are available to anyone with a credit card, civil rights protections can easily be bypassed.

Californians will have the ability to have their data removed from any broker - as long as that broker actually takes steps to comply with the law - from 2026. This isn't enough; these brokers shouldn't exist to begin with. But at least it's one step in the right direction. Everyone should enjoy the same protections.

#Technology

[Link]

[John O'Nolan]

This is a genuinely inspiring post from John O'Nolan about the foundation behind Ghost and how it operates. It feels like a blueprint for so many open source projects.

"The business model was simple: We would make a great open source product that people wanted to use. Those people would need a server to use the product, so we would also sell web hosting. The revenue from our hosting would fund further development of the open source product."

This sounds simpler than it is. I tried it and failed - but John, Hannah, and team have made it work well, growing a dedicated community around a high-quality, well-designed product that serves a specific set of needs really well.

This will be interesting to watch:

"So, as we reach our headcount limit of 50 people — which is likely to happen in the next couple of years — our intention is to expand the seats on Ghost's board of trustees beyond myself and Hannah."

John describes it as part of building "a more diverse and representative governance structure" for Ghost. There are lots of ways to cut that, but he paints a strong picture that includes bringing in the community and upholding transparency.

What also blew me away here was that Ghost was profitable eleven days after launching its hosted service, which in turn was released not long after the initial Kickstarter campaign was closed. I'd love to hear more about how much of the platform was already built and how they pulled that together.

#Technology

[Link]

[Bluesky Announces Series A to Grow Network of 13M+ Users]

An important announcement from Bluesky:

"We’re excited to announce that we’ve raised a $15 million Series A financing led by Blockchain Capital with participation from Alumni Ventures, True Ventures, SevenX, Amir Shevat of Darkmode, co-creator of Kubernetes Joe Beda, and others."

Bluesky is quick to point out that it will continue to not use blockchains or crypto, and that they will "not hyperfinancialize the social experience (through tokens, crypto trading, NFTs, etc.)".

Instead, this may be an indication that blockchain investors are interested in other forms of decentralization; Bluesky is talking about adding voluntary paths to revenue for creators, so there may be some way to make a return there. (I'd been wondering what the business model would be, in order to justify these funding rounds.)

Bluesky's CEO Jay Graber previously worked on ZCash, a cryptocurrency based on Bitcoin's codebase, so has some clout in that community, but this may have implications for other projects and companies that want to raise money. (Another investor is True Ventures, which previously heavily backed Automattic; those implications are also interesting.)

Another important note: Bluesky's had some flak in the past for not federating. But this announcement notes that there are over a thousand other personal data servers, which is a solid achievement.

#Technology

[Link]

[Maggie Harrison Dupré at Futurism]

File this under "good, but I can't believe this wasn't already banned":

"Sweeping changes to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines aimed at cleaning up the polluted, confusing world of online product reviews went into effect on Monday, meaning the federal agency is now allowed to levy civil penalties against bad actors who knowingly post product reviews and testimonials deemed misleading to American consumers."

Regardless of the fact that they should obviously have never been allowed, fake reviews, including AI-generated reviews, are now definitively not. This also includes people who buy star ratings and followers (which, as a practice, is I think far more prevalent than we might realize).

Because this is a US law, and the internet is what it is, we can probably expect a lot of these activities to now take place overseas, on other platforms.

#Technology

[Link]