Telegram is nice for instant messaging: it's simple, cross-platform, does well with resources, and run by a non-profit org. Yes, russians might be spying on it. FB/G are spied by others. Meh. (There's Signal as well, but I like my SMS separated.)
Google Docs are terrible anyway: slow, lacking lots of features. Libreoffice or (god forbid!), installed M$ Office - and share the docs on, for example, Dropbox.
However, it's already very hard to tell people what the web used to be. Just read the entry "I’m 22 years old and what is this."[2] - web devs being in the business for <10 years may not even remember how it was before G or FB. I'd welcome any ideas how to address this.
[1]: https://yunohost.org/ [2]: https://medium.com/@tylrfishr/im-22-years-old-and-what-is-th...
One challenge (at least amongst my circles) is that people do not seem to value diversity and are for some reason obsessed with mono-culture. For example, they are not willing to try another docs or email or phone provider. Even if they try something new, they are quick to jump to opinions in mere seconds (for example, I asked a friend to try mattermost[2] instead of slack and he wanted to go on about how the shade of blue was unappealing...). Many of my friends are also truly vested into converting their entire household into apple or google products (i.e one of them). If apple made a mattress tomorrow, they would immediately buy it :)
It's amazing how Google as a search engine has developed such brand loyalty to the point that people don't think there can be any alternatives. Personally, I like DDG's results better, and I also simply like diversifying. But as I said, even which search engine you use is highly stigmatized.
People should really be open to trying new things once in a while. How can people be certain that some search engine X isn't better than Google's engine when they haven't even tried it? Same goes for browsers -- years ago Chrome won people over with its speed, and friends I speak to still have this perception that it's the fastest browser out there, when some tests would begin to suggest its losing that edge (no pun intended).
free software projects and linux distributions have been around for years, but the focus is often on compatibility and familiarity. i say, we throw all of that in the trash. we need fresh ideas, fresh designs, and interfaces. interesting new devices and interaction models. app stores that engage creators as a revenue channel. there's no reason why liberty and profit should be at odds. [0]
i especially think that we need to rethink how we develop applications. clouds are useful, but why are the developers on the hook for all of that compute? i think we need to radically simplify the tools we use for provisioning compute resources in a way that allows users to leverage all of their compute resources and easily attach more on-demand. this echoes back to plan 9, which has this idea of creating a virtual system out of many hosts.
we're just getting started, and there are a lot of challenges ahead of us. if any of this sounds interesting or fun, maybe you want to get involved with our nonsense. [1]
https://www.heropunch.io/tomo/cybredeck/
most of the action is happening in #heropunch:matrix.org i'm on the os side, actually. @mlg:matrix.org is tackling the hardware. we're starting simple with off the shelf parts, but if people like our shit we are def interested in scaling up to make more advanced devices.
also, if you would like to back something that exists right now there's the librem 5
The bigger hurdle are the email clients. Both on desktop, android and as webmail, email clients are mostly fairly bad (as in: just as good as the one I had nearly twenty years ago). It's hard to keep up with Gmails UX and features, especially since open source software isn't exactly known for stellar UX.
I have been considering migrating away from Gmail, but it is a bit daunting, mostly due to all of the logins I will need to update (if that is even possible) and because I would have to go back to manual sorting and categorizing.
It's not in their interest to allow open access to their messaging service. The current status quo means you have to be in their app or on the website to access your contacts and view their ads!
What's needed is to prevent certain kinds of key acquisitions.
The law around acquisitions is too permissive in an age of network effects; acquisition laws were fine pre-internet but don't solve their intended purpose anymore.
Normally, the market corrects against the biggest players because the biggest players are slow to change culture and their business.
But, acquisitions are the mechanism by which the big players are preventing themselves from being disrupted by smaller, more nimble players.
If the big players can simply buy up any new comers (who will want a deserved pay-out for their efforts) on the scene, they maintain complete control regardless of what consumers want.
Otherwise, any "alternative practices" you try to foster will simply be crushed, if they ever become a large enough threat.
https://stratechery.com/2017/why-facebook-shouldnt-be-allowe...
The problem is that in the internet age, it is not in controlling supply but in effectively unlimited demand created by combination of zero marginal cost to add customers and network effects of the internet.
I wonder at what point companies decided they could own our data, and we agreed to it.
If I write something on a post-it note and give it to my coworker, will 3M rear its head and demand ownership of that information? No, of course not. So why do we allow Google to own our information when we use their software and/or office equipment?
Microsoft is still in the process of transitioning. Google, Facebook and Amazon likely never had a data-agnostic phase in the first place.
It's been a boiling frog situation, but it's not so much that they decided they could own it as that it's been established that we don't. It helps to think of these companies as scavengers picking up the data we trail behind us on our travels. Even so, by at least the Target breach (2013) the message has been that we have no claim or recourse.
Same for facebook, perhaps start using a different social network and messaging apps. Sure, no one will see my posts, that is until I send them a good old fashion link, to a photo of my cute daughter.
we need those "PODS" from Tim Burner's Lee's https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-w...
In this model, all your data belongs to you. Any social network you allow or visit can make use of the data, but it all still belongs to you. And you'll be able to switch from Social network to social network or document provider(docs, spredsheets software) as easily as changing your socks.
And we don't have to completely replace GOOG and FB, we should have to offer alternatives and reduce the cost of switching - That's the key to preventing these services from turning Evil.
Are there any social networks out there currently that do this yet?