I still believe that a major change in the way data collection tactics are carried out should come from "below" (the people) rather than some incompetent digitally-challenged politician.
Practically, if all the technical challenges of Inrupt are sorted out - and I see many - this could become a standard enforced by "enlightened" governments.
This would probably take a lot of lobbying and can only work if
This is the only way as far as i'm concerned, if something is to be long lasting. People have to be living it in practice because of the inherit cost/benefits of system over another, no matter what any particular government makes a diktat for. Right now, most people are cost/benefits skewed towards the fb's (but that is slowly changing to me beacause the cost of computing continues to decline, while the knowledge of such increases at the same time as people at the margins experience higher perceived costs with the fb's).
>This would probably take a lot of lobbying and can only work if
Thats still playing the game of the giants… why play that game if trying to something new? Probably there are cheaper ways to subvert it, while making the giants pay increasing lobbying costs for ends that chip away at their power.
I think as long a some internet users at the margins get exposed to the downsides of the asymmetrical relationship they have with bulk data collection mostly benefiting the few (and have the ability to subvert it to any degree) the digital overlords are facing a death by 1000 cuts rather than the swift blow everyone seems to expect.
Will Inrupt be the thing that brings the digital overlords to their knees? Probably not, that will be best achieved by the digital overloads themselves overtime by creating the conditions for people to even want to pursue and allocate resources for ideas (like those that Inrupt invokes in some) in the first place.