Dangerous Protocols Web - Summer of Protocols
P rotocols are touted as a liberating alternative to the walled technological gardens that govern our lives: an elusive utopia—centered around user freedoms instead of commercial interests—that we, poor lost sinners, have been trying to find our way back to since the internet’s genesis.1
Certainly, protocols have the potential to liberate us, offering a level of interoperability and customization that platforms don’t. It doesn’t feel good to be controlled, especially by technology, and platforms show no shame in flexing their might over us. Twitter’s most tyrannical moments following its most recent transfer of ownership—censoring Substack links, throttling reading and messaging features for non-paying users—drove waves of devoted fans to seek shelter elsewhere, whether Mastodon, Bluesky, or Threads. Protocols are the infallible mistress we imagine ourselves escaping to, offering a richer, freer, and more exciting life than the dreary, drudgerous, doomscrolling serfdom that we’re confined to today.
I think this is fantasy. A historical look at protocols suggests that their purpose has always been to simplify coordination and communication. With enough time, protocols converge upon conformity. They do not liberate us, but rather seek to control us completely.
