@ekaitz_zarraga @wolf480pl @alcinnz @cy
The vendors don't actually need to agree on the format, though that would make it more efficient. Even if Amazon Prime Video, Wal-Mart Vudu, Netflix, and Crunchyroll all had different data formats, a third party app could work as long as the properties were defined and had namespaces. It would be join hell trying to merge their APIs live, but technologically possible top serve a hybrid catalog. If the data was open

Of course capital is dead set on capturing every detail and micromanaging the experience while modern buyers have been conditioned out of an expectation of being able to set hard boundaries, but that's not an intractable problem

Follow

@yaaps @ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz @cy
So kinda like Pidgin / libpurle tries to do with chat... it's an uphill battle, but better than nothing.

>Of course capital is dead set on capturing every detail and micromanaging the experience while modern buyers have been conditioned out of an expectation of being able to set hard boundaries, but that's not an intractable problem

It's not intractable, but the solution is in a different attractor field...

· · Web · 1 · 1 · 1

@wolf480pl @yaaps @ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz That’s a fascinating way to look at it, albeit a mere reframing of the problem. Reality is we can’t move the ball, only change the height of the hills and hope the ball moves the way we want. So all those “fights against violence and oppression” that do “nothing” are changing the hills around slowly, and the ball just isn’t moving yet…

@cy @yaaps @ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz
That may be a part of it, but another part is adding an impulse, or a delta of momentum, to the ball, all at once.

Also, let's not focus on the "fight against violence and oppression", which is rather vague and kinda an oxymoron.

My point is, there are forces which you can't control that will affect the situation you want to change, making your battle sometimes uphill, sometimes downhill, effectively trying to pull it to the nearest pit.

@cy @yaaps @ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz

So what I meant originally, is that there are 2 attractor fields: one with a standardized protocol for doing $X, and another where every provider of $X has its own protocol / API.

In the standardized attractor:
- any branded app restricted to one provider will most likely lose to a generic client program
- clients programs act on behalf of the user
- any provider with proprietary protocol loses customers

1/

@cy @yaaps @ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz

In the proprietary attractor:
- any generic client has to play cat and mouse, tracking changes in each of N different APIs maintained by its enemies
- branded apps act on behalf of service providers
- a provider has nothing to gain by using a standardized protocol

2/2

@cy @yaaps @ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz

If only we could switch between attractor fields by sending emails into the past...

El Psy Kongroo

@wolf480pl @yaaps @ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz Sending information to the past is just about the only way to cause a technological singularity, so I don’t see that happening any time soon. :p

@wolf480pl @yaaps @ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz the ball will set in motion on its own once it’s on a slope. But I do agree the analogy works to give the ball a push now and again, to get it started following the trend. So people seeking change should establish an unstable equilibrium, because their plans to change won’t change, until something happens to get the ball rolling. Like a slope with a sort of ledge…

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!