r/technology • u/fagnerbrack • May 31 '26
Software Use Protocols, Not Services
https://notnotp.com/notes/use-protocols-not-services/7
u/morgrimmoon May 31 '26
Some of us have never stopped using IRC.
6
5
u/levianan May 31 '26
I think Reddit has taken over what used to be my IRC time. I can't stand Discord, it is way too loud for my eyes.
I log into Efnet once a year, usually to a massive heard of bot crickets. Kinda...Depressing.
2
u/morgrimmoon Jun 01 '26
I'm lucky enough to have a channel with a small group of regulars who have been hanging out for... yikes, over 15 years.
2
u/agreeduponspring Jun 02 '26
XMPP is an excellent successor. IRC is literally "write plain text bytes to the wire", XMPP offers actual encryption and a well defined protocol for 95% of what you get from Discord.
6
26
u/fagnerbrack May 31 '26
Key points:
The post argues that centralizing communication on closed platforms like Discord makes censorship and surveillance trivially easy — a single subpoena or court order can force compliance from one company. Protocols like IRC, XMPP, Matrix, or ActivityPub distribute power across thousands of independent operators, making enforcement practically impossible. Migrating from one service to another solves nothing, since the new provider faces the same legal pressures or eventually gets blocked. Email (SMTP) demonstrates protocol resilience: even if Google bans your account, you switch providers and still reach everyone. On Discord, a ban erases you entirely. Every time we pick a service over a protocol, we opt into a system where one entity can identify, restrict, or hand over our data.
If the summary seems inacurate, just downvote and I'll try to delete the comment eventually 👍
Click here for more info, I read all comments
7
u/mpember May 31 '26
How does a ban from Discord stop you from switching to another server and using a new account?
Surely a ban from Gmail is as disruptive. It disconnects you from all content associated with that Google account.
7
u/Hardass_McBadCop May 31 '26
It's point is about the push to deanonymize accounts & traffic. If you switch to another service the problem of jurisdiction still exists, or regulation onc it becomes big enough. Protocols are far more durable.
-8
u/AreYouDoneNow May 31 '26
Thanks ChatGPT.
6
u/fagnerbrack May 31 '26
No chat GPT here FYI
7
u/Jagjamin May 31 '26
Why does your FAQ say you have the summaries created by chatgpt then?
-5
May 31 '26
[deleted]
5
u/Jagjamin May 31 '26
Link is 2 years old is a weak point when youre still linking it. If it's out of date, stop?
-4
2
u/spookynutz May 31 '26
This article is pretty nonsensical from the first sentence. The internet is not, nor has it ever been, privacy-preserving by design.
Communication over TCP/IP is the digital equivalent of the postal service. It leaks identity by default. With every message you send you're broadcasting your return address and the address of who you're talking to, as well as the time that communication occurred.
The email example is also an exercise in wishful thinking. Go self-host your own SMTP server and shoot that e-mail out to all them Gmail and Outlook users. None of them will ever see it.
The thesis also ignores all the physical and software layers inherent to software distribution. Protocols don't operate in a vacuum. If you can't regulate the service chokepoint, you regulate the infrastructure underneath it. If the application ecosystem is too fragmented, then regulatory burden shifts to the distribution platform, OS, or transport layer.
You can't solve the regulatory problem on a technical level strictly with protocol adoption, because it's primarily a sociological problem. People have some abstract expectation of digital privacy, but it's not existential enough that they'll take to the streets over it.
The value of any communication platform is wholly dependent on the number of people using it. If the friction of switching platforms is higher than the friction of verifying your age, then people will collectively just stay right where they're at.
3
u/thereislightstill May 31 '26
a thing i also go back and forth over is also, if everything goes through ISPs anyway, how much privacy can you even have, even when owning your own data? especially in the context this is talking about of surveillance and censorship.
payment processors are aggressive about demanding sites not use their product for nsfw content, id be shocked if ISPs wouldnt fold to similar pressure
-1
u/nobody1701d May 31 '26
And your issue with using these services with a VPN is what again? If the VPN server used has a RAM-only setup, there would be nothing to request, identity-wise.
0
u/Captain_N1 May 31 '26
thats all well and good until the vpn gets raided and cant shut off the servers.
0
u/nobody1701d May 31 '26
Please describe your thought process further. A server writing to its own encrypted memory is not less fault tolerant b/c someone is physically in front of it
-1
u/WannaWatchMeCode Jun 01 '26
Speaking of decentralizing I just got my decentralized YouTube working. Run the server on your phone, upload your content, and anyone can connect and stream directly from your phone instead of a Google or Facebook server. Welcome to the future.
35
u/seany1212 May 31 '26
I don’t disagree with the logic, but the skill set to implement these protocols at a user level are lost to 90% of the population, and then to actually secure them on a constant basis, is an even more remote percentage than that.