Evan Prodromou
I'm somewhat agree.
I've mentioned before how Metcalfe's Law (value of network is proportional to the square of the number of nodes) means that if you divide a population in even halves, each half has a quarter of the value of a united network, and the sum is only half. The math gets worse if you divide in thirds, fourths, or more.
Evan Prodromou
So, a network divided by incompatible protocols will not reach its full potential.
For some people, that might still feel like success. A half dozen incompatible protocols, sometimes bridged and sometimes not, maybe with some dual-stack nodes to spice things up a bit. The medium makes do.
So, somewhat agree, for varying definitions of success.
I think if there's a chance to get the whole network connected, and you can get full flourishing value, you have to try.
Evan Prodromou
I think of the postal network, phone network, email, and the Web. They all have one form of addressing and delivery; one protocol. It took a long time to get there, and a lot of it is effected with bridges, but the benefit has been unbelievable.
Evan Prodromou
If you believe that the medium matters, you have to give it a shot.
Ozzie D, NP-hard :bikepump: :vegan:
@evan This is a strong argument! But my instinctual reaction is to ask, "reach it's max potential for what?" What if the network is optimized for delivering something toxic? Balkanization feels like it has benefits.
Evan Prodromou
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Genesis#Chapter_11
Evan Prodromou
@trwnh right. You've managed to learn how to avoid web sites you're not interested in, even though your browser uses HTTP.
infinite love ⴳ
@evan i see where you're coming from but i think that social networks are not the same as any other communication network. there's an element of community and community management that isn't present when you're just communicating or just publishing. w/r/t metcalfe's law, as harsh as it may sound, some people bring *negative* value to the network. some networks have negative value. there are some networks i don't want to be part of, and some people i don't want to be reachable or to be reached by
infinite love ⴳ
@evan however: i am ambivalent about having this disconnection happen at the protocol level vs. at some kind of access control or filtering/message-dropping level. sometimes it's "enough" to just mute or block or make myself invisible. other times, i don't want to even exist in certain spaces or on certain protocols.
infinite love ⴳ
@evan Well, no, websites are a publishing medium and I don't go around visiting every website in existence, nor does the existence of some website imply anything about *my* website. But there's a social salience in saying "Oh, I'm not on [network]" even if [network] has billions of users. It's like living off-grid -- you explicitly choose not to participate in the primary network, and build your own. In other words, if there was only one protocol, it would become necessary to invent another one.
Evan Prodromou
@trwnh Why? You can also say, "I'm not on email, I don't have an email address." You don't have to invent a new email protocol or use X.500 or Banyan Vines in order to be off the Internet email network.
Evan Prodromou
@rylancole great question! I think bridging helps but there's clearly less value than native integration
Rylan
@evan If you have two protocols and that means half the potential of the network, does creating a bridge for the two protocols multiply again to get the full value of Metcalfe’s law or is bridging them still just additive? Or some other math?
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.