Like any opposition party, the anti big tech crowd is actually a loose coalition of different goals and interests. I've noticed that as these platforms get through the earlier stages of "will it even work" the differences in values are becoming more pronounced and controversial. The primary two groups seem to be those who value federation and see centralized control and algorithms as the threat and those who value encryption and see surveillance as the threat. Obviously these two things aren't mutually exclusive and we all want to see new platforms that can solve for both. But there's a quite distinct difference in the primary priority and consequent technical decisions.I hope maybe if we can be aware that this is a broad set of technologies being driven by a broad set of goals then we can be a bit more gracious when a project isn't perfectly aligning with our personal values and find the common ground and values.
RadiozRadioz|2 months ago
I'm definitely in the sect of people who have "detach from big centralised tech, be self hostable & interoperable" as the main priority, with E2EE being a nice extra. So it's always interesting when I read articles from the other side who see privacy, maximal E2EE & zero metadata as their #1 priority. They entirely dismiss protocols as junk for reasons I would never think or care about. But these things do matter to them, and they are just as important as me.
It strikes me as a near impossible balancing act for a project like Matrix to please everyone. They are clearly trying.
I will also note that there's a volume difference in the messaging being sent out. The privacy/security people are often very loud & critical, with good reason from their perspective. For example this article. That makes the discourse seem more negative than the overall sentiment probably is.