Protocol-Based Social Media Is Having A Moment As Meta, Medium, Flipboard, And Mozilla All Get On Board

from the make-it-so dept

Over the last couple of weeks there have been a number of interesting developments regarding protocol-based, decentralized social media, and each time I plot out an article about it, something else pops up to add to the story, including Thursday evening as I finally started writing this and news broke that Meta (parent company of Facebook and Instagram) is at least in the early stages of creating an ActivityPub-compatible social media protocol and app, that it considers to be something of a Twitter competitor.

Meta, the parent firm of Facebook and Instagram, is hashing out a plan to build a standalone text-based content app that will support ActivityPub, the decentralised social networking protocol powering Twitter rival Mastodon and other federated apps, people familiar with the matter told Moneycontrol.

The app will be Instagram-branded and will allow users to register/login to the app through their Instagram credentials, they said. Moneycontrol has seen a copy of an internal product brief that elaborates on the functioning and various product features of the app.

The program is apparently codenamed P92, and conceptually it makes sense. Platformer got the company on the record confirming the effort:

We’re exploring a standalone decentralized social network for sharing text updates,” the company told Platformer exclusively in an email. “We believe there’s an opportunity for a separate space where creators and public figures can share timely updates about their interests.”

I’m at least a little amused, because I’ve had multiple conversations with Meta/Facebook execs over the years regarding my “Protocols, Not Platforms” paper, explaining to them why it would make sense for the company to explore the space, and was told repeatedly why they didn’t think it would ever make sense for a company like Meta.

How times change.

Back in December, we predicted this sort of thing, asking when ActivityPub might have its “Gmail moment” and discussing how Google single-handedly changed email when it entered the market with Gmail on April 1, 2004.

And in the last couple of weeks there have been a bunch of really interesting moves from companies with long internet histories. It started last week when news aggregator Flipboard announced not just a tepid ActivityPub integration, but that it was going to fully embrace it. Flipboard founder Mike McCue stopped by my office the day before to talk about the company’s plans, and this isn’t just a random side-project. McCue recognizes that betting on protocols is the way to bring back the promise of the early internet, and taking us away from being solely reliant on internet giants. While early on, the company has already launched its own instance for Flipboard users to sign up (if they’re not already on another instance), and deeply integrated Mastodon into the app in ways that feel completely organic and natural (to the point that I, as a lapsed Flipboard user, have begun exploring the app again).

Days later, the ever popular site for hosting long-form writing, Medium (which was founded by Twitter and Blogger co-founder Ev Williams) announced that it, too, had launched its own Mastodon instance at me.dm for members of its $5/month premium subscription.

And, just around the time that the Meta news became public, Mozilla (which had previously announced such plans) turned on its own instance, mozilla.social.

All of these are important moves, and all of them happening within a two week period suggests that momentum is building towards recognizing how important a protocol-based world is, over a centralized-siloed world.

Also, having these larger companies embrace the space will do a bunch of important things to drive a protocol-driven world forward. For starters, they will hopefully help with the onboarding process — one of the major things that new users complain about in trying to get set up with Mastodon. The dreaded “but what server should I use?” question seems to stump many — but with more recognized and trusted brands entering the space, that question becomes less of an issue.

With these companies entering the fediverse, we’re also likely to see much greater improvement in other areas as well, including new efforts to improve features and UI. We’ve already seen a bunch of mobile and web app developers creating more beautiful front ends for Mastodon, but I’m expecting a lot more of that as well.

I also expect that this will filter down into the core code and protocol. With more companies working to join the fediverse, it creates something of a virtuous cycle that should benefit the wider space. It also should allow for much greater experimentation with new ideas and features (and that might lead to busting some old myths that resulted in poor initial design choices).

There are also lots of important features — especially tools for admins — that really haven’t received nearly enough attention and development, and having these bigger companies, who understand the space and the need, will hopefully spur more development.

Of course, as noted, as I started to plan out this article, I was mostly focused on the companies like Flipboard, Medium, and Mozilla and their efforts. All three have been extremely respectful in how they’ve been exploring and entering the fediverse. All three seemed to focus on participating and listening as they figured out their plans, and doing so in a way that fits with the fediverse, rather than trying to bend it to their will (and even so, they did upset some people).

Meta, somewhat obviously, is a bit of a different beast. And certainly some on Mastodon and other ActivityPub platforms are worried. I’d argue, however, that Meta embracing ActivityPub is a phenomenal thing. First: it’s validation. It shows that Meta recognizes that something is happening. Second, everything I noted above about spurring needed improvements also applies here and Meta could provide a lot of help. Third, even as there are some who want to keep Mastodon smaller, if it’s really going to thrive, it needs to continue to grow and be introduced to more people. The nice thing about the fediverse is that you can craft it to meet your own needs, so if you really want to keep it small, there are ways for you to do that yourself, and create a smaller community.

But the biggest reason why I think it’s so important that Meta is now even willing to explore the fediverse, is because it shows (as my paper suggested) that the largest most siloed companies can absolutely benefit from moving away from that model and towards a more open, distributed, protocol-based world. The old Twitter had suggested that could be the case when it embraced protocols and set up the independent Bluesky project, which Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal intended to eventually replace Twitter’s infrastructure. But seeing Meta explore it as well is obviously even bigger. And, honestly, I’d be shocked if Google weren’t similarly playing around with something.

Of course, this is Meta we’re talking about. There’s just as much likelihood that P92 never amounts to anything. There’s also the possibility that Meta tries the old “embrace, extend, extinguish” playbook of Microsoft. However, one of the nice things about ActivityPub is that it should be somewhat resistant to such efforts. And, as such, it also creates its own incentives to keep companies like Meta in check. Because if it starts acting “evil,” then the fact that it’s easy to move elsewhere (without losing contact with everyone) acts as a natural pressure valve, creating incentives to keep even the most evil companies in check.

And, speaking of Bluesky, last week, it also opened the (invite-only, currently) doors to the beta version of its app. While I’m excited about ActivityPub and Mastodon, I’m also excited about Bluesky. As I’ve discussed, the folks working on it are incredibly thoughtful in how they’ve been approaching this, and I think that the underlying AT protocol they’ve created actually solves many of the protocol-level limitations found in ActivityPub that have frustrated some folks in the fediverse. I believe that the Bluesky team explored ActvityPub and recognized its limitations, and that was the reason it chose to work on AT Protocol instead.

I do wonder, however, if Bluesky is going to end up deciding that it somehow needs to embrace ActivityPub in some form or another as well, especially as it has been building a larger and more entrenched userbase (which may continue to grow as more companies move in). I’m still optimistic about Bluesky, because I think the approach is even better than ActivityPub, but in the end, having a critical mass of users is the most important thing.

All that said, this much activity in the last few weeks shows that protocol-based social media is having a moment. I’m not saying that it’s the moment that inevitably leads to a bigger shift in how we view the internet, because it could still all come crashing down. But, something’s happening, and it’s pretty exciting.

And it brings me back to a question I asked a few months ago: why would anyone spend time embracing/using another centralized social media service after this? This is your opportunity to contribute to a better future internet. For all the complaining about “big tech” and the lack of competition, here’s the chance to make a difference, to embrace an internet that is more about the users than the companies, where power and control are moved to the ends of the network (the users) rather than the owners of the walled gardens.

There’s a real opportunity now to help make that better future. I recognize that there’s a decent contingent of cynical people out there who keep telling me it will never work, and we’re all locked into this world of big awful companies. And, who knows, perhaps things will go that way. But, why give in to that when there’s at least a real chance for something better? Something that more approximates the end-to-end internet we were promised?

Something is happening right now, and its success or failure is dependent on what people do next. So why would we not join in and try and build something better? Join a fediverse instance, encourage others to join, or even create your own. Participate in the myriad discussions about how to make things better for everyone. Generate ideas of how the technology can be put to use for good, and then put those ideas into action.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: bluesky, flipboard, instagram, medium, meta, mozilla, twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Protocol-Based Social Media Is Having A Moment As Meta, Medium, Flipboard, And Mozilla All Get On Board”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
35 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Noone Cares About VR Yet

Of course, this is Meta we’re talking about. There’s just as much likelihood that P92 never amounts to anything.

I hear that Zuck put all his eggs into the Metaverse basket. Maybe they’re reversing course, and trying to diversify so that they don’t miss out. Instead of spending a lot of effort building a dud.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Just gonna ignore the second round of the twitter files, huh?

All those fed funded think tanks and NGOs colluding in a big group (like, organized chat groups, signal channels and conferences) to censor content based on ideology and viewpoint? Not just Twitter but with FB and IG on the same channels. Requests by FBI, DOJ etc to ban various accounts claiming they’re foreign agents and even Twitter is like “wait a sec, it doesn’t look like it”. Which is good that they pushed back but often they didn’t they seemed QUITE happy to suppress tweets based on content they just thought was misleading, including stuff they actually knew, at the time, to be true. And no, it doesn’t matter that all these groups were only like 40% effective, it matters that they asked, and were 40% effective. They bragged about that. It was progress. (in violating the first amendment)

I’m sure you’ll just lie about the content of all that but it directly contradicts what you’ve been saying.

Government agencies censoring content is illegal.

Government agencies censoring content by proxy is illegal.

Government agencies censoring content by a swarm of coordinating proxies? Still fucking illegal.

And it brings me back to a question I asked a few months ago: why would anyone spend time embracing/using another centralized social media service after this?

Yeah, as back in December, the reason to ask that is not cuz of Musk taking over Twitter but because of all the shit before that.

And lol, no, Mastodon isn’t going to happen. I kinda want it to (prescisely because it would make government censorship near impossible), but the numbers just aren’t there.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Government branches censoring vast swaths of content because they’re afraid of its platform’s country of origin (not the content’s origin) is just fine though?

Well, not sure about that, particularly if they’re wrong (i.e. it really was a US citizen), which they were often. Also foreigners still have free speech rights within the US?

Regardless they often were not doing that, they were censoring US speakers based on what they were saying. Very much not OK.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
HotHead (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Also foreigners still have free speech rights within the US?

Legally speaking, probably not. But if you believe in free speech as a principle and not as a mere legally granted right to citizens then free speech should apply regardless of the speaker’s country of origin and citizenship + residency statuses. And without some level of free speech a foreignor hoping to become a US citizen would be unable to call out government abuse toward the foreignor in the interim (or abuse which prevents the foreignor from being able to finish the process toward citizenship).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Twitter didn’t have any more 30 second outages

Dude, it was shown to you last week, and it even made the most insightful comment, all the links to news articles that totally disproved your whole “30 second outage” narrative.

You suck so bad at this that you still use a narrative that can be easily disproven in less than 2 seconds of googling.

How is it that you suck so bad at this??

BTW, have you learned yet why Facebook can’t use §230 to dismiss a lawsuit against FB’s own speech?

Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

Just gonna ignore the second round of the twitter files, huh?

No, Masnick already covered them, but since you can’t read, it passed you by.

And no, it doesn’t matter that all these groups were only like 40% effective, it matters that they asked, and were 40% effective. They bragged about that. It was progress. (in violating the first amendment)

I know you’re too delusionally entrenched to understand this, but law enforcement asking Twitter to look at specific stuff on their platform is not a violation of 1A. The government pressuring or forcing Twitter to do it would be a 1A violation, but since they didn’t, it’s not.

I’m sure you’ll just lie about the content of all that but it directly contradicts what you’ve been saying.

Except that it doesn’t. You just think it does.

And lol, no, Mastodon isn’t going to happen.

You mean hasn’t happened yet.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

Matt Taibbi released another round of selected material on the 9th

This is just ad hominem. You have no idea if they were “selected” or not, that’s just an accusation, but more importantly it doesn’t matter if they were. There is no “context” needed to an email “We are going to censor this content even though it is true because we feel it’s content is damaging”. If there is an email “we are going to censor this content because these government agencies asked us to” it really doesn’t matter if it’s “cherry picked”.

There are multiple emails showing collusion with government agencies and government funded think tanks to censor American’s speech. You can’t just wish that away, though I know you want to.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

No, Masnick already covered them, but since you can’t read, it passed you by.

The one’s from Thursday, March 9th? No, he didn’t you fucking dumbass. How about you educate yourself, or just be casually conversant with current events before speaking?

You ignorance made basically everything else you said invalid, but:

Except that it doesn’t. You just think it does.

It did then. But now even more and more explicit smoking guns have been published.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
HotHead (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Thanks for the link and additionally for pointing out the relevant Tweets. But the source doesn’t support what you claim it does (emphasis mine):

In one remarkable email, the Virality Project recommends that multiple platforms take action even against “stories of true vaccine side effects” and “true posts which could fuel hesitancy.”

Good move? Maybe not. Government involvement? Yes, since the Virality Project was partnering with the government. Government coercion? Going by the Twitter thread, not at all. I hope you know what recommends means. Where’s the evidence that the government would’ve done something to punish Twitter had Twitter not followed the Virality Project’s recommendations? And if I had to guess, I’d say that the Virality Project agreed with its own recommendations. Give evidence with links. No coercion and no threats means not government censorship.

Anyway, in my previous comment I meant that you took government censorship in decentralized as a given even though one purpose of decentralization protocols is to resist censorship (of the government variety and the private variety).

HotHead (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I hope you know what recommends means. Where’s the evidence that the government would’ve done something to punish Twitter had Twitter not followed the Virality Project’s recommendations? And if I had to guess, I’d say that the Virality Project agreed with its own recommendations. Give evidence with links. No coercion and no threats means not government censorship.

Additionally, posts 26 through 40 (the rest appearing unrelated to EIP / Virality Project) don’t have evidence that Twitter actually followed through on the Virality Project’s recommendations to remove “stories of true vaccine side effects” and “true posts which could fuel hesitancy.”

Removing posts for speech and not for conduct is private censorship but not government censorship unless the government coerces or threatens. (How often Twitter removed solely for speech is a separate issue that the thread tells us nothing about.) The buck stops with the party making the decisions. And let’s be honest, private censorship is the way websites work. It’s just choosing which speech to allow on one’s own website i.e. one’s own property. That’s why defining censorship as only government censorship is okay in most cases. Partisan news organizations and partisan blogs engage in private censorship, but that’s just normal behavior, not what people call censorship. What makes social media sites different?

HotHead (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Maybe my personal definitions are not worth using most of the time

I don’t believe in free reach, but hypothetically speaking I would criticize a previously inclusive social media site for adopting a new policy of banning all speech tolerating or supporting X marginalized group. I would call it censorship in my head, but recognize that free speech and property rights protect that kind of decision. The purpose of my hypothetical criticism would be not to claim that X people deserve to use that specific website but to call out the website for being intolerant (from my perspective) beyond justification. The principle matters, but not necessarily the final outcome.

I have a preference for starting with broad definitions and adding modifiers (such as private vs. government censorship) to narrow down what I mean. Belatedly, I’m starting to notice that my broad definitions throw trolls and other haters of free speech a bone.

HotHead (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Clarifying my remark about justification

The purpose of my hypothetical criticism would be not to claim that X people deserve to use that specific website but to call out the website for being intolerant (from my perspective) beyond justification.

A non-government website which allows user-generated content needs no justification to remove Y viewpoint in the first place, nor does the site need justification to allow Y viewpoint. Regardless, if I support Y viewpoint then I will distrust the managers of a website which removes Y viewpoint.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I hope you know what recommends means.

It’s like a mob boss saying “take care of it” instead of ordering a hit job. They want to pretend that means they can’t be accountable for ordering a murder, but they still did, and in court it is usually provable.

Simply not how it works.

Removing posts for speech and not for conduct is private censorship but not government censorship unless the government coerces or threatens

Incorrect. It’s just censorship by proxy.

HotHead (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

It’s like a mob boss saying “take care of it” instead of ordering a hit job. They want to pretend that means they can’t be accountable for ordering a murder, but they still did, and in court it is usually provable.

This is not the same. The mob boss calls the shots and punishes targets, whether for offending the mob boss or for some arbitrary reason. Neither the Virality Project nor the government threatened Twitter into removing vaccine information. If Twitter calls the shots then there is no government censorship.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anathema Device (profile) says:

Would that be the Matt Taibbi who so conspicuously beclowned himself at Jim Jordan’s show trial yesterday?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVlOP1J-SV0

The Matt Taibbi who wrote a book about how much fun he had with rape and sexual harassment?

Which he had to apologise for, since this ‘non-fiction’ book was supposedly only satiric?

Drug addict and general embarrassment to the profession Matt Taibbi?

You’re using that Matt Taibbi as a reputable source?

Matthew, Matthew, Matthew. You want to play with the big kids, you need to bring your big kid boots and brain.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Matthew, Matthew, Matthew. You want to play with the big kids, you need to bring your big kid boots and brain.

So your answer is ad hominem?

No no, I think I’m a the “big kid” here.

I don’t agree with your characterizations nor their relevance but it doesn’t make the receipts go away.

Oh, Taibbi was addicted to heroin at one time? (not now) Cool. We still have hard proof of government censorship by proxy

(this is also funny, cuz in other circumstances I’m sure you would find pointing out someone’s drug history completely unacceptable)

I knew you were fucking joke, but damn.

Anonymous Coward says:

33 comments and it’s all trolls and people feeding trolls instead of discussing how protocols are having a moment. Bennett and Koby have the commentariat wrapped around their fingers. Please do better.

On topic: I’m a fan of people moving away from big platforms like Twitter. I’m still not convinced that the complete atomization of social media via federation and protocols is gonna be what we need. I like the idea of a wide array of small centralized sites and then larger sites that perform functions for the users of those smaller sites, as well as serving as a connective tissue between those smaller spaces. Art sites such as DeviantArt, for example, serving as connective tissue.

Returning back to the days of yore is good, but going all the way back to protocols is a touch too far, in my opinion. Recreating the kind of hub-and-spoke connections we saw in the early-mid aughts is something that makes more sense to me.

Leave a Reply to HotHead Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...