Matt Slater responds to the rise of the #PlatformCooperativism movement by issuing a call for #ProtocolCooperativism:
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.
Have capitalists dominated the fediverse yet?
@Antanicus my position on that is some from column A, some from column B. Some developers don't play well with others, and simply do better work in the BDFL model. Others do well in consensus-based teams like #Loomio. I don't see any need to impose external control on how developer-workers organize themselves. But there's a difference between core development and *deployment*, especially when deploying server-based software as online services. That's where #PlatformCooperatives shine.
I described how I think about the difference between protocol, framework, and platform here:
In the context of discussions here, Facebook or Uber's app are examples of platforms. So a platform cooperative might create a cooperative ride-sharing app.
You may disagree, but that's what I meant.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!