Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/social
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Stephan
@stephancill
getting increasingly bearish on the idea of client diversity as a means of effective decentralization key assumptions: 1. communities are very likely to use the same client 2. you're unlikely to migrate clients if you get nerfed that client, your ability to move clients doesn't actually help the situation unless your audience on that client also moves with you potential half-solution: separate the feed building layer from the client layer? not a bulletproof solution because no guarantee that you won't just get filtered at the client level anyway next level: encrypted feed building?
7 replies
0 recast
29 reactions
jd 🌺
@jdl
separating the feed from the client is the way. bsky does this today that said both assumptions presume the absence of a protocol. email does this today
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Stephan
@stephancill
how does it presume the absence of a protocol? the ability to use different clients and migrate between clients depends on an underlying protocol enabling that the assumptions are basically 1) the cost of migrating outweighs the cost of censorship at the client level 2) the people you care about connecting with are likely all using the same client
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jd 🌺
@jdl
if the underlying protocol provides the necessary primitives (reply, bookmark, etc) then how does migrating carry any meaningful cost if the people who care about what we write with gmail, why are they more likely to use gmail rather than outlook
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Stephan
@stephancill
if gmail marks you as spam and you migrate to another client with the same email your mail is still going to land in gmail users' inbox? not sure we're on the same page here
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Stephan
@stephancill
oh okay i understand your question now the cost comes from moats like UX, familiarity, and app-specific features like DMs also just because one person you like with got nerfed it doesn't mean you will act on it by migrating
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jd 🌺
@jdl
say more about nerfing. not sure we understand the term properly gmail having its own spam filtering is certainly a feature for some. however we would argue that clients being tightly coupled with spam filtering is not the ideal state spam filtering, block lists, allow lists, home feeds. all of these things exist on a continum -- their function is to adjust what is presented to the user. they are effectively algos. our argument is that such capabilities ought to exist as their own layer in between the protocol and the client. something that can be employed alongside a client according to the user's wishes providing defaults is important, but they cease to be defaults when there is no affordance for the user to make a change. in that context we use a different word: control
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
