Initial response to
@pluralistic regarding
#FreeOurFeeds
Want to thank Cory Doctorow for answering questions about his support for Free Our Feeds here:
Pluralistic: Billionaire-proofing the internet; Picks and Shovels Chapter One (Part 5) (14 Jan 2025) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
What follows is a response in the form of a list of concerns about FOF.
Cory rightly took exception to the "scolding" tone of some of the discussion so far. It is hoped that here, at least, we can keep it focused on the substance of this issue.
So, here goes...
1. Primary goal seems to be to build a second relay for Bluesky so people can exit the corporate site if it becomes enshittified. Necessarily this will involve building undemonstrated technology effectively for Bluesky that they should have done more than promise will work. So it becomes public funding of corporate owned technology. There is no guarantee that it will work. It depends on cooperation of Bluesky. Even once implemented there is no guarantee it will fulfill it's function as the company will certainly retain a myriad ways of hobbling the interface should they desire to do so. Bottom line, is it an escape hatch to nowhere?
2. The technology itself. If you read Christine Lemmer-Webber's analysis of the AT Protocol it seems like the protocol itself is incompatible with the FOF purpose of independent decentralization of nodes. Certainly not low cost decentralization. Understand BSky pushes back on this, but the fact that they have not demonstrated this capability and the prospective FOF cost of millions of dollars to make a second relay makes it seem like Christine is right. In any case, why should the public do this before the company first demonstrates the capability?
3. FOF Personnel is tech and AI heavy, and with the exception of you, does not include clear advocates for open truly public systems. The recent direction of the Mozilla Foundation and their top line involvement is cause for concern.
4. Have not been able to locate any documentation on this foundation other than the splashy, but thin, website. What is the legal structure? Who are the officers? Any financials? Is there any specific mission statement? Implementation plan? Where does the money donated go? Who/what is it spent on? Etc.
5. Bluesky corporate structure. Bluesky represents itself as owned by Jay Graber and the employees, when it reality it is owned by a who's who of Silicon Valley VC's and crypto entities like Blockchain Capital. They are about to close a new funding round led by Bain Capital expected to value the company at $700M. What about all of this makes this the place to invest public money to escape billionaires?
6. Sucking money and attention from public social media. We are at a critical moment. As a result of the election, the public has become aware of the power of billionaires to shape opinion. We have a moment in time to help move people onto public platforms which are truly defensible. Bluesky is another corporate trap, where people are not safe from the same thing that has happened in previous cycles of enshittification. It is not clear FOF can provide that safety for reasons stated above. So, the fear is funding this multiyear, super expensive effort with public money actually detracts, distracts and takes funding away from the absolutely necessary goal of actually building public social media, effectively becoming a poison pill.
techcrunch.com
bsky.app
mashable.com
