I think gevulot is the speculative fiction version of the Personal Data Store. (The Quantum Thief is an awesome book btw, massively recommend)
"Gevulot is a form of privacy practised in the Oubliette. It involved complex cryptography and the exchange of public and private keys, to ensure that individuals only shared that information or sensory data that they wished to. Gevulot was disabled in agoras."
"Somerset House Studios presents ASSEMBLY, five days of sound and performance extolling the best in contemporary electronic and experimental music and the makers behind it."
I really like the Personal Data Store concept. You own your data, and you choose to let apps interact with it for your benefit. It's pretty much what the #indieweb is doing (though perhaps for the more limited subset of things that don't need verified claims).
I don't like the commercial nature of most PDS offerings (including Solid now).
Either way, some good general food for thought in this article.
How you choose to break a monopoly depends on your politics I guess.
Direct action against it; grassroots alternatives; state support for alternatives; legislation/anti-trust; state alternatives. Maybe some combination thereof.
You rarely hear complaints about the user experience of signing up/ using email. But that's (nominally, at least, gmail black hole aside) a decentralised service. It's just because people are familiar with it and it's where people already are. If a company came along and said - hey - for email - everyone on the planet must sign up to this one megaservice to exchange emails from now on. People would say - what a terrible idea. Because people are familiar with it not working that way.
In a narrow definition of user experience - how easy is it for me to sign up; how easy it is for me to add an image; how easy is it for me to add a note; - there is nothing special to Facebook or Twitter in these regards.
I think it's a bit of a misused and overused trope to say that people use centralised services because they have a better user experience.
The only definition of user experience that puts Facebook or Twitter ahead of alternatives is a broad definition that includes the network effect (people I know are on it) and familiarity (it's what I'm used to).
But in such a broad definition, I would then include things such as 'you manipulate me with ads', 'you steal my attention'. This is bad UX.
"It means saying βhere is a path to limitless abundanceβ, rather than calling for civilisation to be placed in a straight jacket."
Following on the previous 'degrowth vs accelerationism' article I linked, a view from what the other article would call the left accelerationist approach.
I wouldn't call it accelerationism though. Just a harnessing of technology for the aims of equality and abundance. But not blind techno-optimism.