@bob @Shamar That’s because Simon is squarely about Open Source. Open Source was a reactionary immune system response by the business community to Free Software (in its original form, limited to copyleft licenses). They could see the value in free as in free labour and the value of privatisation but they didn’t want the “share alike” aspects of Stallman’s licenses. The only thing that Open Source and Free Software have in common is that the source is open.
@bhaugen Capitalists centralising everything and always competing for profit rather than collaborating can never get cooperativism right. Free Software is anathema to their process, even if they benefit from it, there's a fundamental philosophical impossibility in being for capital and being for collaboration at the same time. US Liberals really need to make their minds up.
If you consider a platform cooperative to be a centralized and hosted system owned, operated, and governed by a cooperative, it is easy to tell what the cooperative owns.
If it's an open protocol, how does a cooperative own it?
A cooperative could form to create and maintain software that runs the protocol. SSB is starting more than one organization like that
Or cooperative could form to host sites that run the protocol, for example, social.coop. (part 1 of 2)
RT @email@example.com: I wish more open source communities would move their chat away from Slack and use http://matrix.org
Aren't we all fed up with 10k message limits and 32 different logins?
Want to make apps for the @Purism #Librem5? We published a simple roadmap for the libhandy GTK+ phone widgets library, so you can get a grasp of our release cadence: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/libhandy/wikis/home
While they are not sufficient, I would emphasize a bit more that open protocols are necessary.
I don't think it is possible to get where I think we want to go using one platform where everybody needs to use the same software and host. Doesn't allow enuf room for variation or local creativity. And the singular platform will always get too big to understand.
But boots on the ground organizing live people are also necessary and more important.
What allows them to dominate? They have financial resources smaller players don't. For example, they can pay as many fulltime staff as they need to make their products and services more attractive than more freedom-respecting alternatives. They can get their PR posters slapped up all over major cities. Protocols + cooperatives offers us a way to compete with this. The point of Platform Cooperativism is that neither can do it alone, which is what Matt's essay seems to miss.
Matt Slater responds to the rise of the #PlatformCooperativism movement by issuing a call for #ProtocolCooperativism: