“Adversarial Interoperability” helped Apple claw its way back from the brink and overcome a powerful monopoly that was strangling innovation. This is the playbook up-and-coming Twitter competitors should adopt. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interoperability-reviving-elegant-weapon-more-civilized-age-slay
This is exactly the kind of thing I have in mind when I say “interoperability.” Make it easy for people to port their accounts around, remove the lock-in factor. https://mastodon.social/@mcc/101190410017638433
Incidentally, portable identity is, IMHO, the one truly compelling thing about “web3.” The idea that your identity is this portable cryptographic token (“wallet”) you own and can plug into different services is interesting, but gets lost in all the finance BS.
@buzz We've had portable identities you own and can plug into different services since 1991. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
@buzz@andersen.social The problem I have with this approach is that it's a "let's go to Mastodon, it's like Twitter but we control it." narrative. "Let's publish into the Fediverse" is a much better one. There, like here, publishing is the issue. As long as we all agree, that filters should happen at the end point and not be decreed per fiat by admins of anything, that's where the crux lies.
Portable identities aren't really that much of a feature. We don't have them, yet, as subscription to Actor schemes isn't really possible (yet).
IMHO, centralized services usually win out over distributed ones because of what I call “the email configuration problem.” If setting up Twitter felt like configuring a POP inbox, a lot fewer people would use it.