Signal's behavior resembles that of the big tech more and more. But it should be criticized even more harshly than them.Support me through Patreon: https://w...
Oooh. You’re pointing out something important: Matrix is now somewhat dependent on the success of its flagship client Element. So that relationship is something that merits scrutiny.
At the same time, when I go over to Matrix’s foundation website, I see clearly what the governance principles and distribution of responsibilities are. This makes it clear that the Matrix foundation operates as an open-governance and principled organization.
Similarly, if you go over at Element’s website, you’ll see that they are indeed a for-profit company.
Both seem compatible. And so far, the diversity of clients and the way that updates are delivered regarding Matrix’s development, make it seem as if the foundation is working well.
It isn’t immediately clear to me that Matrix is primarily run by a for-profit company. And yet I do see your point that the Matrix-Element relationship merits scrutiny. Apart from the relationship I described, what makes you say Matrix is run by Element’s company, instead of the governance that’s described in the Matrix foundation website?
Good points, I think the matrix/element relationship does deserve scrutiny but people blow this out of proportion when they say matrix itself is for profit or bought out.
Because the for-profit company existed first and the people behind both are largely the same. Also nearly all of the active core developers are on payroll of the the same single for-profit company AFAIK.
This is clearly not an “lets spin-off a company to provide additional services and fund developers for this open-source community project” kind of situation but rather a “lets try to make this look more like a broad community project” kind of afterthought.
Another clear sign who is in charge of the project and makes sure they stay so: are there any other companies significantly involved in Matrix? AFAIK no, so all that open-standard talk is at least for now just that: talk only.
I largely agree with you: the links between New Vector and Matrix are strong.
For example, I looked into the Core Spec Team (which is different to other core teams in Matrix), and most of them on GitHub develop for both Element/Riot and Matrix/Synapse/Dendrite. There was only one case in which I saw activity in Matrix and no activity in Element.
We could conclude that they’re all New Vector employees, but I also think about myself: if I had the chops and the time, I’d not only invest my time and effort into improving the spec, but also the client that I use. If it so happens that the client is Element, I’d spend time working on it. But regardless, the links that you point out are tight.
But I don’t worry that much. Here’s why:
Despite that, there are two reasons why I don’t worry too much about this link. One is that there are already multiple organizations that depend on Matrix/Element. I’m referring to Mozilla, the French and German government, among others. These entities chose Matrix/Element not only because of the technical capacities that is has, but the values it reflects. It’s a protocol that will develop along a path that these organizations like enough to adopt. The could’ve chosen Slack, or Teams, or some other proprietary and centralized communication solution. But they didn’t because they preferred an open standard with open-sourced clients and a federated approach for servers.
So here’s the critical part: given that those organizations —as do I and many other people I’ve found online— like and use Matrix/Element because of both its technical capabilities and the vision that establishes the path the spec and the clients will follow, if New Vector is to act like, for example, Signal does (against the values we hold), people would criticize it, modify it*, and —as last resort— ditch it.
Luckily, if New Vector were to act against our values, it wouldn’t only be a matter of public outcry, but of already-set institutional counterweights. This is the other reason I don’t worry too much about the tight link you pointed out and I confirmed: the organization’s highest ranks (the ‘Guardians’) are set up in such a way that New Vector is a minority. This is not just talk. This is a deliberate crafting of incentives that guide behavior.
However, it is both your and my hope that other organizations will make it to those decision-making positions. For now, I’m satisfied with New Vector being a minority, and the other guardians being respectable people.
*And it only helps that the standard is an open standard, licensed in such a way that other people could modify it —other people being someone who isn’t New Vector.
A related worry: Matrix server’s efficiency. It’ll improve.
Another related worry I saw (from you!) in another community/thread was the inefficiency of the servers. This is serious. Not only environmentally, but for federation to be viable. I want to be able to run my personal server on my measly Raspberry Pi.
Here’s where the magic of institutional incentives work. One works through the market. The other through good ol’ state-funded research.
The market-incentive is to maximize profits. This implies minimizing costs. New Vector, as a company, has to be aware of this. Otherwise their business wouldn’t be viable. For example, I read a post by the founder saying that this inefficiency was mainly due to users who join many rooms, and that they’re working to fix this (I hope I can find the link). So, if they are to scale their services, they are either going to pay a growing bill or they’re going to find a way of solving their efficiency problem.
This reflects the reality that what’s at stake is the costs and the profits of a service offered in a market. Markets, whether we like them or not, are excellent at reducing costs. That is part of the reason why I am confident that this technical hurdle will be surpassed.
But that’s half of the story. The other half is that the open standard doesn’t imply a monolithic server technology. Tellingly, there’s whole ecosystem of technologies that can use the Matrix protocol. One of the most promising projects to use low resources while using the protocol is Conduit. It’s an implementation based on Rust, and its benchmarks are amazing. It’s still lacking in functionalities, but there’s a small detail that I want to point out:
Its development is being funded by the German government. This reflects a different sort of incentives: profits and costs are not immediately affecting the German government, unlike New Vector. Rather, this is the sort of research that is solution-oriented. The German government recognized that investing in this particular project was worthwhile. We could reasonably speculate that this is mainly because of the current inefficiencies in other Matrix server technologies.
So we see both a company, an ecosystem, and a government all seeking Matrix to be more efficient.
It’s not trivial that these entities didn’t choose close-sourced and centralized solutions. They chose a project that aligned with their values. Put aside the institutional arrangements in the Matrix foundation that incentivize good behavior (which to me are well structured); the very same criticisms that are swarming Signal today will be directed in the future towards New Vector if they act like assholes. But so far, making an open-source, federated protocol with open-governance and institutional counterbalances— all of that— assuages my worries.
It’s my hope that markets work like they’ve always worked: reducing costs. It’s also my hope that basic research works as it’s always worked: finding novel solutions. Finally, I hope that you and I, and everyone who values open-source, decentralization, open protocols, and open governance, hold decision-makers accountable. This is the only way to assure that our visions are realized technically and socially.
Oooh. You’re pointing out something important: Matrix is now somewhat dependent on the success of its flagship client Element. So that relationship is something that merits scrutiny.
At the same time, when I go over to Matrix’s foundation website, I see clearly what the governance principles and distribution of responsibilities are. This makes it clear that the Matrix foundation operates as an open-governance and principled organization.
Similarly, if you go over at Element’s website, you’ll see that they are indeed a for-profit company.
Both seem compatible. And so far, the diversity of clients and the way that updates are delivered regarding Matrix’s development, make it seem as if the foundation is working well.
It isn’t immediately clear to me that Matrix is primarily run by a for-profit company. And yet I do see your point that the Matrix-Element relationship merits scrutiny. Apart from the relationship I described, what makes you say Matrix is run by Element’s company, instead of the governance that’s described in the Matrix foundation website?
Good points, I think the matrix/element relationship does deserve scrutiny but people blow this out of proportion when they say matrix itself is for profit or bought out.
Because the for-profit company existed first and the people behind both are largely the same. Also nearly all of the active core developers are on payroll of the the same single for-profit company AFAIK.
This is clearly not an “lets spin-off a company to provide additional services and fund developers for this open-source community project” kind of situation but rather a “lets try to make this look more like a broad community project” kind of afterthought.
Another clear sign who is in charge of the project and makes sure they stay so: are there any other companies significantly involved in Matrix? AFAIK no, so all that open-standard talk is at least for now just that: talk only.
Thanks for clarifying.
I largely agree with you: the links between New Vector and Matrix are strong.
For example, I looked into the Core Spec Team (which is different to other core teams in Matrix), and most of them on GitHub develop for both Element/Riot and Matrix/Synapse/Dendrite. There was only one case in which I saw activity in Matrix and no activity in Element.
We could conclude that they’re all New Vector employees, but I also think about myself: if I had the chops and the time, I’d not only invest my time and effort into improving the spec, but also the client that I use. If it so happens that the client is Element, I’d spend time working on it. But regardless, the links that you point out are tight.
But I don’t worry that much. Here’s why:
Despite that, there are two reasons why I don’t worry too much about this link. One is that there are already multiple organizations that depend on Matrix/Element. I’m referring to Mozilla, the French and German government, among others. These entities chose Matrix/Element not only because of the technical capacities that is has, but the values it reflects. It’s a protocol that will develop along a path that these organizations like enough to adopt. The could’ve chosen Slack, or Teams, or some other proprietary and centralized communication solution. But they didn’t because they preferred an open standard with open-sourced clients and a federated approach for servers.
So here’s the critical part: given that those organizations —as do I and many other people I’ve found online— like and use Matrix/Element because of both its technical capabilities and the vision that establishes the path the spec and the clients will follow, if New Vector is to act like, for example, Signal does (against the values we hold), people would criticize it, modify it*, and —as last resort— ditch it.
Luckily, if New Vector were to act against our values, it wouldn’t only be a matter of public outcry, but of already-set institutional counterweights. This is the other reason I don’t worry too much about the tight link you pointed out and I confirmed: the organization’s highest ranks (the ‘Guardians’) are set up in such a way that New Vector is a minority. This is not just talk. This is a deliberate crafting of incentives that guide behavior.
However, it is both your and my hope that other organizations will make it to those decision-making positions. For now, I’m satisfied with New Vector being a minority, and the other guardians being respectable people.
*And it only helps that the standard is an open standard, licensed in such a way that other people could modify it —other people being someone who isn’t New Vector.
A related worry: Matrix server’s efficiency. It’ll improve.
Another related worry I saw (from you!) in another community/thread was the inefficiency of the servers. This is serious. Not only environmentally, but for federation to be viable. I want to be able to run my personal server on my measly Raspberry Pi.
Here’s where the magic of institutional incentives work. One works through the market. The other through good ol’ state-funded research.
The market-incentive is to maximize profits. This implies minimizing costs. New Vector, as a company, has to be aware of this. Otherwise their business wouldn’t be viable. For example, I read a post by the founder saying that this inefficiency was mainly due to users who join many rooms, and that they’re working to fix this (I hope I can find the link). So, if they are to scale their services, they are either going to pay a growing bill or they’re going to find a way of solving their efficiency problem.
This reflects the reality that what’s at stake is the costs and the profits of a service offered in a market. Markets, whether we like them or not, are excellent at reducing costs. That is part of the reason why I am confident that this technical hurdle will be surpassed.
But that’s half of the story. The other half is that the open standard doesn’t imply a monolithic server technology. Tellingly, there’s whole ecosystem of technologies that can use the Matrix protocol. One of the most promising projects to use low resources while using the protocol is Conduit. It’s an implementation based on Rust, and its benchmarks are amazing. It’s still lacking in functionalities, but there’s a small detail that I want to point out:
Its development is being funded by the German government. This reflects a different sort of incentives: profits and costs are not immediately affecting the German government, unlike New Vector. Rather, this is the sort of research that is solution-oriented. The German government recognized that investing in this particular project was worthwhile. We could reasonably speculate that this is mainly because of the current inefficiencies in other Matrix server technologies.
So we see both a company, an ecosystem, and a government all seeking Matrix to be more efficient.
It’s not trivial that these entities didn’t choose close-sourced and centralized solutions. They chose a project that aligned with their values. Put aside the institutional arrangements in the Matrix foundation that incentivize good behavior (which to me are well structured); the very same criticisms that are swarming Signal today will be directed in the future towards New Vector if they act like assholes. But so far, making an open-source, federated protocol with open-governance and institutional counterbalances— all of that— assuages my worries.
It’s my hope that markets work like they’ve always worked: reducing costs. It’s also my hope that basic research works as it’s always worked: finding novel solutions. Finally, I hope that you and I, and everyone who values open-source, decentralization, open protocols, and open governance, hold decision-makers accountable. This is the only way to assure that our visions are realized technically and socially.