commit 618196c47af69f4892121dbd0d75b3588538d3d6
parent f5ab0e7b1ee3dfba0ba7f0bad85f92ea5cef5e01
Author: Andrew Laack <andrew@laack.co>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 19:12:04 -0500
Work in progress
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/posts/wip/protocols-over-applications.md b/posts/wip/protocols-over-applications.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Reasonably Hostable Protocols Over Applications
+
+Motivated by Joshua Blais' blog post about using the internet as if it was 1999 [1], I wanted to discuss problematic applications and protocols and why they are wolves in sheeps clothing.
+
+## Zulip
+
+Zulip [2] is an instant messaging program that looks like a bastion of freedom, but it is not. Historically, I have been tricked into thinking free software is the epitome of user freedom, but it is not. Free software is necessary but not sufficient.
+
+Try to find a third party zulip client for Linux. You will not. This is what happens when you use applications and not protocols. There are three primary alternatives to Zulip:
+
+1. IRC
+2. XMPP
+3. Matrix
+
+Try to find third party clients for any of these three protocols and they will abound. This is because they are designed to allow users to make decisions about how they interact with data. Similar to how we build interfaces in software to guarantee consistent interactions with data, so too should the systems we interact with define such elegant interfaces, albeit these interfaces should be much more stable than those of software which can change more flippantly during refactors.
+
+The point here is I value having the freedom to choose how my data is displayed to me. I want vim-like keybindings in the terminal most of the time. I sometimes want something more like Lagrange [3] which allows me to apply tasteful styling to information with the ability to render images and play videos, things terminal emulators ought not to do, but some still try [4].
+
+## Bluesky
+
+The Bluesky social network is known for using the AT Protocol. People frequently misunderstand the social network, believing it is decentralized, which it is not, and believing it is federated, but this is only technically true, but not meaningfully so. Until recently, only the Bluesky organization was running a shared heap for social interactions on the network.
+
+The AT Protocol specifies all contributing nodes to the network must maintain a copy of the entire shared heap. This imposes computational and storage costs that are unreasonable to most. As of 2024, this required 5 TB of storage, only growing since then [5].
+
+When a protocol doesn't use message passing, and instead uses a shared heap architecture, it allows a small set of individuals to control the meaningful parts of the network. This is especially damaging when the network is a social one because of so-called "network effects" and peoples' misinterpretation that social networks are "social" and "matter" in any non-trivial way.
+
+In any case, the false promise of AT Protocol is addressed by ActivityPub, and the direct analog for Bluesky that uses this protocol is Mastodon, part of the so called "fediverse". Mastodon solves the message passing / shared heap problem.
+
+This presupposes some functionality afforded by Mastodon is worthwhile, which I find to be a dubious claim, but nonetheless, it is better than centralized social networks and self-proclaimed federated ones too.
+
+The reason I discuss Bluesky in particular is it is an example of a poorly designed protocol. The value of protocols is their ability to support people in the way they want to view data, which is achieved by Bluesky, but also in their ability to own the infrastructure that supports the system, which Bluesky doesn't meaningfully allow.
+
+## The Contradiction
+
+I believe Zulip is better than proprietary instant messaging platforms like Slack and Teams, but it has not gone far enough to ensure users are able to interact freely with their data and the data of others that is offered to them. The company behind Zulip is able to make decisions that harm their users, like they already have by gaiting functionality behind a paywall [?], and protocols can mitigate issues like this.
+
+I used to view AT Protocol in a purely negative light, believing they were being genuinely deceitful in their marketing of the platform's federation capabilities, but I've since come to terms with the fact they are simply a misguided reactionary movement to stand against Twitter / X. Their design decisions were dictated by trying to achieve a 1:1 feature set with Twitter which is much more difficult to do using message passing protocols, but not entirely impossible.
+
+The combination of these illustrates why free software and protocols are necessary, but not sufficient to acheiving optimal freedom for users. These examples are wolves in sheeps clothing, appearing to be bastions of freedom by solving a problem, but creating another that is solved by protocols designed to encouorage self-hosting.
+
+## Proposition
+
+To you, dear reader, I propose you start using applications for information dissemination that implement reasonably hostable protocols over applications that exist without a well-defined protocol.
+
+To achieve such goals I use RSS for broadcasted textual information, email for bi-directional individual or small group communication, and XMPP or IRC for larger group communication. These are the protocols built for these use cases, and they should be used as such. At my work I am unable to use these protocols I view as powerful, but I hope by using them personally it will show others how well they work and lead to wider adoption in the "enterprise" world.
+
+I Used Signal as my primary means of communication, but their hostility towards user freedom has pushed me away [6]. That said, as a form of epemeral communication it has its' merits, but to trust others with artifacts of your work that hold an insignificant amount of value is a fool's errand. If you would be sad all of your information has been lost, or you would be annoyed if it was all leaked, consider using protocols. If this doesn't apply, perhaps applications may suit you well, but is it worth supporting a system that harms others? When you use applications you split communities and contribute to the "network effects" that harm protocol adoption, usage, and investment.
+
+Currently, video hosting is a strange pain point. Videos are large in storage and require extensive bandwidth for hosting, but peertube does exist. In the case of video hosting, use peer tube because it allows groups to support the hosting effort or individuals.
+
+Real time calling and video conferencing are ephemeral to me. I don't want to have a recording on conferences in the future. The only point of significance is I don't want others to have any either. As such, I find Jitsi meet, and other free software programs similarly permissible. Ideally, there would be a protocol for this, but there are not very many ways to interact with video streaming data so the benefits of protocol extensiblity are minimal.
+
+# References
+
+[1] - https://joshblais.com/blog/using-the-internet-like-its-1999/
