Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Linked Data, Solid, and the FSF

[J.B. Nicholson]

Tom wrote:
> These days I'm not so confident that linked data and Solid can live up
> to all the promises.  The main reason I am questioning this is that
> these things are apparently not being pursued as free software projects
> for the benefit of users and society at large.
>
> So I'm wondering, what are the views of those involved with the FSF
> regarding linked data and Solid?  I'm wondering mainly about long term
> goals and ideals but am also interested in technical aspects as far as
> I'm able to understand them.  Are there any projects planned or in
> progress at the FSF that will use linked data or Solid?

I don't know what the FSF makes of it and I can't speak to FSF's projects. 
I can only guess that if Solid is either a protocol which all are free to 
implement, or if Solid is a program distributed as free software then the 
FSF will probably stay out of any discussion about Solid. I don't often see 
the FSF discuss details about technical differences between free software 
that do more or less the same thing.

It seems to me that ActivityPub does what I understand Solid aims to do 
(what little I understand of Solid). But ActivityPub exists with viable 
software that has been running for a while now.

Solid seems to me to be well-intentioned but inadequate and likely to not 
catch on because people don't understand or appreciate protocols or the 
technical details of implementations. Non-technical users look at 
ready-to-use services hosted in a way where they don't have to learn much 
to use them.

If Inrupt (which I believe will be an instance of Solid available 
commercially) is just another single point of censorship, then I don't 
understand how it is different than the other single points of censorship 
like Facebook, Twitter, Google's blog service, WordPress.com (the service 
not the WordPress software), and so many other services.

To me the main issue is the hosting and user interface: ordinary users 
really don't need the silly limits of Twitter or any Twitter-alike[1]. 
Users could use a blog hosted on hardware they own connected via an 
always-on Internet connection like what they probably already have (at 
least in wealthier countries such as the US). FreedomBox seems like it's 
heading in the right direction on this.

I can't comment on one protocol or implementation over another. I'd want 
free implementations of whatever is deemed valuable.



[1] Chomsky & Hermann's "Manufacturing Consent" 
(https://archive.org/download/dom-25409-manufacturingconsentnoamchomsk/Manufacturing_Consent.m2p) 
explains how restricting the space in which one may express themselves 
limits the range of allowable debate -- new ideas require explanation and 
backing that a limited space is designed to disallow.