I mean, for a while, I thought something like Substack (and not Fediverse) could disturb things a little, but I suppose it and many others have already been killed by slop. So, if you do verified identity management, which is good for certain purposes but perhaps not for others, I suppose you should also do decentralized trust management, and with an ability to delete nodes from a personal but federated trust chain. (And feel free to adopt the idea also for science; it would be very much needed.)
Why do you think a government should compete on a market segment? I find it slightly irritating.
Let me get a cup of the good EU coffee! I like the "privacy" blend the most!
Now let me turn on my EU computer and log-in with my EU id
Check my messages on EU social media and then I have to leave for work
Oh that's a cute girl that messaged me on EU dating
I hope she also likes privacy and democracy
Now into my EU car, let me quickly stop at my EU charging station
Power is cheap, no middleman, all EU for our democracy
And then I'm on my way to my EU employer!
As long as E2E encryption is not guaranteed and we rely on id verification, the only thing this can do is to limit the 3rd parties that can easily access your data.
Everything else is in the air
I'm all in favour of the EU finally emancipating itself from American tech companies, but trying to recreate Social Media, just in a European way, is the worst possible way to go.
We need less Social Media, not an inferior clone of TikTok or Instagram. Gaia-X would have been a nifty project, if it weren't a committee designing a framework for designing committee design frameworks by committee. We seem to make this mistake way too often. Don't plan to build Neuschwanstein—start to build a humble wooden cabin, and expand from there.
Engagement metrics fed into recommendations algorithms are the paperclip maximizers that feed humanity's collective poison.
Europe should do the one thing it knows how to do: regulate. For once, it is the answer. Do it only there. The rest of the dominos will fall.
Making a european branded humanity poisoner is not the answer.
Specifically, regulating against silent signals like watch time and comment count. Upvotes/likes can serve a purpose and would not cause the situation we're in now.
> Europe is in a hybrid conflict on two fronts; our elections and political life are under direct attack from foreign agents who use social media to manipulate public opinion and centre the political agenda to undermine us. We are deploying systems that have editorial pluralism and FIMI monitoring built in to shield our polity from influence and make our democracy resilient under attack.
I just wish there'd be more of a acknowledgement about the very real democratic deficit in the EU, where multiple elections are overloaded and affect different widely disparate affairs, leading to much of the EU largely able to operate completely without fear of repercussions from its citizenship. Strengthening democracy must start at an institutional level.
As of right now, there is just no real way for a European citizen to hold anyone accountable for something like Chat Control. Parliament, where you get a say, is mostly already opposed to it. The council and comission are de facto untouchable.
Totally valid point - but there are a lot of other strategic consideration.
Especially with 'Social' there are network externalizations like 'critical mass' - that actually compounds across a lot of things.
No European country given size and language is going to be able to create something that resonates as well as the American variation beyond the critical mass needed, at least naturally.
If 'French Facebook' started at one of the 'Grande Ecoles' it would have grown much more slowly, and maybe never moved out of being French centric and therefore not gone beyond borders.
Without the 'momentum' that doesn't attract investors, doesn't make employees want to work 'late nights for the big IPO payoff' etc..
And there are so many other related conventions, such as capitol markets, public markets, so many issues.
So - in order to overcome those limitations there may have to be a lot of strategic thinking and manoeuvring.
Given that Europe took 4 years to adjust to a nation literally invading it ... well ... I wouldn't hold my breath.
There are some winning opportunities: government procurement is powerful but Euros are afraid to negotiate hard with MS Goog etc..
There's a lot of money involved, forcing issues on privacy is entirely possible.
Same for local content, some degree of decentralization.
Requiring government actors to use 'Euro Mastadon' or whatever - it means school, students, parents come abard and then you have 'critical mass'.
Requiring 'open doc format' means you can break the MS Office monopoly.
Requiring 'Linux First' on every IT procurement decision - or even 'Open Soruce First' so local city council must give an excuse for why they are not using 'Approved Euro-Linux Variations' etc..
I don't think making a good product is enough. X is still prevalent despite Musk's actions both as a public person and as X's owner. The alternatives, be it Bluesky or Threads, are fine to use, yet people aren't moving.
There's no way we'll be able to compete against Google or Meta in any meaningful way if we can't even get people out of X. Even more so because I'd argue that a good product is a little more boring than the ones that are currently at the top.
Ah but for some reason that was missing from the principles. It is the ONLY thing that matters.
Being European is a nice boost on the feelgood factor, if people even know. Anyone who ranks that above product quality is a minority - that’s why this has ~400 signatures not 4 million.
I would have subscribed to that before Trump‘s second term. Nowadays for many Europeans great product is not a necessary feature to choose European over American.
I think they focus mainly on the fact that these are federated and mature solutions. I don't know anything about Matrix but as far as XMPP/Jabber and "push notifications" go, you don't need to reveal the message, nor the sender, in the alert. Right, it's not perfect, but in my book that goes a long way for privacy.
Perhaps relevant context: The EU commission just ignored the "Tech Sovereignty Package" it launched ~3 weeks ago, and explicitly referred open-source as a core element of their strategy, and endorsed W, another ATproto-based social that recently a) closed their code and b) ...had its CEO attend Davos. Make of that what you will.
Attention trap platform feel nothing like social to be frank. Now that we have LLMs to prove that it doesn't take any human direct involvement to generate epic useless conversations, that should make it all the more obvious.
Europe is adopting open source and open protocols, not to promote individual sovereignty, but explicitly to protect European sovereignty from foreign influence. This is not what these technologies were built for; "promoting democracy" does not protect the rights of individuals.
The technology listed is mostly federated, not radically open (like, for example, nostr). In particular, ATProto has provided the EU with the perfect opportunity to signal openness while simultaneously standing up a new walled garden in which dystopian "moderation policies" will be the norm.
This thesis is undermined by the reality of operational an implementation concerns.
A 'wish list' is not hugely important to the operational capability of 'doing the thing'.
It's definitely a 'nice to have' and a 'starting point' from a certain angle, but it's a nominal thing really.
Thinking about critical masses, requiring established social networks to have open APIs and local content etc., definitely some regulations around local hosting and even use aka 'gov entities must use European based entities' for certain things, which helps build critical mass.
Etc.
Also - as someone commented 'doing the things' is often 75% of the reality of this, strategic considerations make up the smaller part even if they are critical.
38 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 50.8 ms ] threadI mean, for a while, I thought something like Substack (and not Fediverse) could disturb things a little, but I suppose it and many others have already been killed by slop. So, if you do verified identity management, which is good for certain purposes but perhaps not for others, I suppose you should also do decentralized trust management, and with an ability to delete nodes from a personal but federated trust chain. (And feel free to adopt the idea also for science; it would be very much needed.)
Having a competitor here to bumble or hinge that is free and doesn’t care about short term monetisation would be a good thing.
We need less Social Media, not an inferior clone of TikTok or Instagram. Gaia-X would have been a nifty project, if it weren't a committee designing a framework for designing committee design frameworks by committee. We seem to make this mistake way too often. Don't plan to build Neuschwanstein—start to build a humble wooden cabin, and expand from there.
Europe should do the one thing it knows how to do: regulate. For once, it is the answer. Do it only there. The rest of the dominos will fall.
Making a european branded humanity poisoner is not the answer.
Specifically, regulating against silent signals like watch time and comment count. Upvotes/likes can serve a purpose and would not cause the situation we're in now.
We need to get specific about the real issue.
You would now that if you ever went to a proper school. Those unfortunately are not widely available on your side of the pond.
* Ban targeted ads or make them opt in;
* Ban targeted content or make it opt in;
* Enforce the use of a do not track header - if the user does not want to be tracked a simple browser or OS setting should be enough.
I guess the Swiss, British, Norwegians, Albanians etc etc are not welcome to participate in this project.
EDIT: In any case this whole thing is stupid. Open source and privacy matters, not country of origin.
> Europe is in a hybrid conflict on two fronts; our elections and political life are under direct attack from foreign agents who use social media to manipulate public opinion and centre the political agenda to undermine us. We are deploying systems that have editorial pluralism and FIMI monitoring built in to shield our polity from influence and make our democracy resilient under attack.
I just wish there'd be more of a acknowledgement about the very real democratic deficit in the EU, where multiple elections are overloaded and affect different widely disparate affairs, leading to much of the EU largely able to operate completely without fear of repercussions from its citizenship. Strengthening democracy must start at an institutional level.
As of right now, there is just no real way for a European citizen to hold anyone accountable for something like Chat Control. Parliament, where you get a say, is mostly already opposed to it. The council and comission are de facto untouchable.
All these companies are just a new way of money laundering with a proud word sovereignty
Your ethics can still be great, but don't make me feel like your product won't be. If you have to market "Europe" or privacy it probably won't be.
Especially with 'Social' there are network externalizations like 'critical mass' - that actually compounds across a lot of things.
No European country given size and language is going to be able to create something that resonates as well as the American variation beyond the critical mass needed, at least naturally.
If 'French Facebook' started at one of the 'Grande Ecoles' it would have grown much more slowly, and maybe never moved out of being French centric and therefore not gone beyond borders.
Without the 'momentum' that doesn't attract investors, doesn't make employees want to work 'late nights for the big IPO payoff' etc..
And there are so many other related conventions, such as capitol markets, public markets, so many issues.
So - in order to overcome those limitations there may have to be a lot of strategic thinking and manoeuvring.
Given that Europe took 4 years to adjust to a nation literally invading it ... well ... I wouldn't hold my breath.
There are some winning opportunities: government procurement is powerful but Euros are afraid to negotiate hard with MS Goog etc..
There's a lot of money involved, forcing issues on privacy is entirely possible.
Same for local content, some degree of decentralization.
Requiring government actors to use 'Euro Mastadon' or whatever - it means school, students, parents come abard and then you have 'critical mass'.
Requiring 'open doc format' means you can break the MS Office monopoly.
Requiring 'Linux First' on every IT procurement decision - or even 'Open Soruce First' so local city council must give an excuse for why they are not using 'Approved Euro-Linux Variations' etc..
Lots of things.
There's no way we'll be able to compete against Google or Meta in any meaningful way if we can't even get people out of X. Even more so because I'd argue that a good product is a little more boring than the ones that are currently at the top.
Being European is a nice boost on the feelgood factor, if people even know. Anyone who ranks that above product quality is a minority - that’s why this has ~400 signatures not 4 million.
You’d need to go the Chinese route and just ban everything to give the full market to domestic alternatives.
Ah yes, there it is. We‘ve learned how to translate this in our heads.
> want to host infra outside the US
> write a blog post
Europe is adopting open source and open protocols, not to promote individual sovereignty, but explicitly to protect European sovereignty from foreign influence. This is not what these technologies were built for; "promoting democracy" does not protect the rights of individuals.
The technology listed is mostly federated, not radically open (like, for example, nostr). In particular, ATProto has provided the EU with the perfect opportunity to signal openness while simultaneously standing up a new walled garden in which dystopian "moderation policies" will be the norm.
A 'wish list' is not hugely important to the operational capability of 'doing the thing'.
It's definitely a 'nice to have' and a 'starting point' from a certain angle, but it's a nominal thing really.
Thinking about critical masses, requiring established social networks to have open APIs and local content etc., definitely some regulations around local hosting and even use aka 'gov entities must use European based entities' for certain things, which helps build critical mass.
Etc.
Also - as someone commented 'doing the things' is often 75% of the reality of this, strategic considerations make up the smaller part even if they are critical.
When you start writing something, pick something more believable. It just invalidates anything you write thereafter.