> Still, you must see > how tempting it is to discuss the freedom box that spits fire.
All too well (from personal experience :-). Cheers, -t On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 21:47 -0400, Boaz wrote: > >>What do people think of this strategy? > > > >It's interesting and I'm glad you are talking about > >the network effect -- but.... there has to be a "but" :-) > > > >You might be overthinking a bit. > > > >What if instead - and this is exaggerated but not by much - > >the very first freedomboxes: > > > >a) Did little more than host a user's personal mailbox (ordinary > >mailbox - no extra fancy encryption, alternatives to DNS, etc.) > > > >b) Booted, was solid has hell, was inexpensive, was a solid foundation > >to build on in the future, and had some minor privacy and feature > >advantages over alternatives like 3rd-party hosted email. > > > >That's a freedombox that does almost nothing at all (other > >than solve some very fundamental problems without which > >nothing else matters). > > > >With such a 1.0 people have an incentive to buy a FB even with no > >FB-specific network effect. > > > >There are lots of similar plans - doesn't have to be email per se. > > > >It's not just you. There are huge numbers of interesting > >ideas batted around for mesh networks, overlay networks, > >DNS alternatives, fancy encryption, new global user id systems, > >on and on and on. Geeze, looking at what is being collectively > >spec'ed out (roughly and informally): the militaries and > >intelligence agencies are likely to be our best "customers"! > >Very, very fancy stuff we're talking about. Industry is > >way behind what we're talking about when we talk about all > >those features. Way behind. To a large extent, so is academia. > > > >All of those fancy featuers are squarely on mission for FB! > >We should catch as catch can. We should plan for them and add them > >as they become available. We should not define the 1.0 around > >them. > > > > > >The fewer of the fancy features we care about for release 1.0 (other > >than laying down a good foundation for adding them later), > >the greater the chance of success and impact, I think. > > > >I think pretty much everything you say is more or less > >right (close enough) EXCEPT that I think that's way beyond > >a strategic plan. The strategy should be to build a > >very solid and simple foundation and avoid hard problems > >like "the totality" of protocols and creating a network > >effect and so on. > > > >There are plenty of things a stand-alone, no other users > >freedombox can be useful for. > > Of course you're right: the most important thing is getting out some > box which does something useful and does it well. Still, you must see > how tempting it is to discuss the freedom box that spits fire. > > > Boaz > > >-t > > > > > > > >On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 17:44 -0400, Boaz wrote: > > > >> One of our most vicious enemies in the beginning will of course be > >> this thing called network effect, which I'll define as that property > >> of both communication protocols and walled-garden style communication > >> services wherein its value to an individual prospective user is > >> increased the more people already use it and decreased the less people > >> already use it. This will be our enemy in the beginning because in > >> the beginning no one will have a freedom box and many people will > >> already use unfree walled-garden communication services. Why would > >> anyone get a thing which won't help them talk to anyone? On the other > >> hand, if we clear the initial hurdle, in the end game the network > >> effect will be our most powerful weapon. This post contains my > >> thoughts on how to overcome network effect in the beginning. > >> > >> > >> This is the framework in which I view our goals. With respect to all > >> the forms of communication that people use in their lives, we desire > >> all of: > >> 1. That they use a free and open protocol, that they could run their > >> own servers. > >> 2. That they do run their own servers. > >> 3. That they encrypt their communications from end to end. > >> > >> > >> As an obstacle to the achievement of our goals, the network effect > >> specifically attacks that first goal. The nonachievement of the first > >> goal would very effectively stifle our ability to work toward the > >> other two, and it is therefore quite imperative that we overcome > >> network effect to achieve the first goal. > >> > >> > >> One of our first orders of business will be to create and describe in > >> totality the set of protocols that makes up the way that freedom boxes > >> communicate, which for lack of a better term I'll call for now the > >> freedom protocol. Looking over my own and other people's wish lists, > >> it seems to me that a large portion of the necessary protocols already > >> exists. SMTP handles mail, HTTP does pages, SIP/RTP for voice, XMPP > >> does instant messaging and a sort of friend request and approval > >> transaction, FTP for file transfer, RSS does feeds though perhaps is > >> not as rich a language as Twitter or Facebook news feed and etc. So > >> as I see it we're most of the way there on the front of creating the > >> protocol suite. And there are projects already working on filling in > >> the gaps and integrating into a unified whole of a "social networking" > >> protocol. > >> > >> > >> So once the protocol exists, our task with respect to the network > >> effect then, is to promote the use of this protocol. How can we do > >> this? > >> > >> > >> We're fighting an uphill battle, so we need to be not just equal but > >> superior to our unfree competition. There need to be significant > >> aspects of the freedom box which are materially better in terms of > >> utility and experience than Facebook. Also, many users will weigh > >> into their decision process degrees of importance of freedom box's > >> privacy superiority ranging from slight to compelling. Best will be > >> if people get diverted away from our competition by censorship. If it > >> gets to the point where some small but significant minority are > >> already using freedom protocol, and then some group for some > >> controversial cause gets their page on Facebook shut down, bonus > >> points for us. Likewise if Facebook as a whole is blocked in some > >> country. > >> > >> > >> Clearly there will be a small number of people, like me and I imagine > >> many others on this list, who refuse to use the likes of Facebook no > >> matter how many people we know use them, and will buy one of the first > >> freedom boxes before knowing anyone else who uses one. This can > >> provide an initial jump start, but this will not be a very large > >> number of people. Why should someone who knows only one or two or > >> worse yet zero other freedom box users buy a freedom box? > >> > >> > >> The first thing that I foresee will be enormously helpful to us will > >> be the way in which an owner of a freedom box will be able to > >> communicate with preexisting adapters of individual parts of what make > >> up the freedom protocol. Straight out of the box, the owner of the > >> first freedom box will be able to use his freedom-box-served email to > >> write people, his freedom-box-served website to make announcements, > >> his freedom-box-served XMPP account to chat with, for example, users > >> of Gmail's chat feature, his freedom-box-served FTP server to send > >> people files, and so on. He can buy the freedom box for these uses, > >> but by doing so he now also supports the entirety of the freedom > >> protocol and is adding to our network effect. This is why I see it as > >> so crucial that we incorporate those protocols which are already in > >> heavy use. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot to reject SMTP > >> for example, because we would be killing a powerful ally in overcoming > >> the network effect. > >> > >> > >> Just one single, really useful, really compelling use of a freedom box > >> could propel the freedom box to prominence in no time. Just as an > >> example, if people have trouble sending large files to each other (no > >> problem, i'll just email it. oh wait, the size limit. okay, i'll use > >> one of those web services. oh wait the size limit. damn) and the > >> freedom box presents a powerful, ultra convenient solution to this > >> problem (imagine right clicking on a file in the file browser and > >> clicking "create FTP link and copy to clipboard"), people might pay > >> $29 just for this one feature. But by doing so, they would become > >> supporters of the entirety of the freedom protocol and add to our > >> network effect. > >> > >> > >> Many people propose that as an aide to overcoming the network effect > >> the freedom box should provide an interface which aggregates > >> communications through unfree channels with ones through free > >> channels. Perhaps, but this could also just encourage those unfree > >> channels to linger like a plague. Imagine that a small but > >> significant minority is starting to use the freedom box. What > >> encourages someone who doesn't care about the goals of freedom box, or > >> does but is lazy, to get a freedom box to talk to the people he knows > >> who use freedom box if he can just keep talking to them, through the > >> same interface on their side, using Facebook? In any case, for the > >> help of the person who already uses Facebook and now is trying to > >> switch to freedom box, nothing stops him from having the freedom box > >> interface open in one window, and a web browser opened to Facebook > >> open in the next window. He's just using a new kind of communication, > >> the freedom box, in addition to the old kind. Mike says: > >> > >> >I'd be trying to "sell" them on a box which would allow them to talk > >> >to me, but cause it to be harder (or at least no easier) to talk to > >> >all the friends they have on Facebook. > >> > >> But that's not true: the box in no way makes it any harder to talk to > >> their friends on Facebook, and as for making it easier, well, why > >> should the freedom box make it easier to use Facebook? Also, asking > >> someone who used to use the Facebook web interface to switch to an > >> aggregation of Facebook and freedom box inside the freedom box > >> interface is asking him to change the way he uses Facebook. Perhaps > >> more useful would be to ensure that the people who are already using > >> social networking aggregators can integrate freedom box into the > >> aggregate. Better, if possible, not to ask people to change how they > >> do things they're already doing. And we would certainly want to be > >> very careful that no one finds himself encouraged by the freedom box > >> interface to use an unfree service that he was not already using. > >> > >> > >> I think it's much more important, rather than to make it easier for a > >> freedom box user to communicate through unfree channels, to make it > >> easier for a user of unfree channels to communicate with users of > >> freedom box. > >> > >> > >> Imagine a hypothetical person who knows one or maybe two people who > >> use freedom boxes, and doesn't want to spend $29 to talk to one or two > >> people. What for this person? One feature that would really help > >> there is a way for someone who has a freedom box to extend an account > >> for the freedom protocol to someone who doesn't have a freedom box. > >> It needs to be dead easy for both parties. And for privacy, it needs > >> to, when possible, encrypt the person's traffic from the people he's > >> talking to all the way to his own computer, not just to someone else's > >> box. I see this as being a powerful way to expand the user base and > >> create network effect in our favor. When one of the first freedom box > >> users who doesn't know any other freedom box users is trying to > >> connect to his friends in freedom, perhaps his closest friends will > >> set up accounts on his own box just to talk to him. > >> > >> > >> And, for a person in the position of the hypothetical person from the > >> beginning of the last paragraph who doesn't know any of those one or > >> two people very well or simply doesn't like relying on (even very > >> small) favors, imagine an account provider who provides an account for > >> the freedom protocol on their server. This situation utterly fails at > >> the second goal, and is not at all what we want in the long term, but > >> it is potentially (at least partially) compatible with the third goal > >> and does satisfy the first goal and so can grow our network effect. > >> It allows this person to communicate using the freedom protocol to > >> that one freedom box user he knows, and increases the value of a > >> freedom box to anyone else who knows him and may be interested in > >> buying one. This service, provided by the "businesses" that Bjarni is > >> so excited about, can be a stop gap measure which helps us to achieve > >> the first goal. That hypothetical person might buy his own actual > >> freedom box at some later time. > >> > >> > >> So these are a few of the things that I think might help us overcome > >> the network effect. And now I'm about to propose one more strategy > >> that I think could compliment those others quite nicely, and prove a > >> powerful force in our favor. > >> > >> > >> Enter the smaller closed garden social networks. Of what interest > >> could they be to us, you ask? In the US market at least, the network > >> effect of Facebook is so powerful that it's becoming hard for any > >> other closed garden social networks to compete. As time goes on, this > >> effect will only increase. They will feel the heat, and they will be > >> desperate for their very survival. How can a small closed garden > >> social network hold a candle to the network effect generated by the > >> behemoth mass of user base that Facebook controls? What I propose is > >> that we approach them with our protocol, and we make a simple > >> proposition: "You, so and so closed garden social network, on your > >> own, will dry up like a worm on a sidewalk under the heat of the > >> Facebook sun, and so will all the other closed garden social > >> networks. But you, throwing together your network effect with the > >> network effect of all the other social networking websites other than > >> Facebook, have a chance of competing head on with Facebook, surviving > >> and flourishing. Adapt the freedom protocol and become interoperable > >> with all the other social networking websites that adapt the freedom > >> protocol and with users of freedom boxes." Armed with our protocol, > >> the swarm of small, currently walled garden social networks will band > >> together for their own survival. And in doing so, they will harness > >> their existing user base to create a mass of network effect which can > >> feed the growth of freedom box. > >> > >> > >> The people at http://onesocialweb.org are trying this approach. > >> Without commenting on the technical merits of this particular > >> project, which I'm perhaps not qualified to do, I find it noteworthy > >> that they're pitching their protocol to operators of walled garden > >> social networks. > >> > >> > >> Imagine a world where a free and open social networking protocol was > >> already the standard. In such a world, the task of moving people over > >> to running their own servers, while still facing significant > >> challenges, would not need to make enemies with the mighty network > >> effect. And it goes without saying that in such a world the likes of > >> Facebook wouldn't stand a chance. > >> > >> > >> What do people think of this strategy? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Boaz > > _______________________________________________ > Freedombox-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
