This is a presentation about the historic evolution of email, how implementations gradually diverged from the specification given corporate forces, the onset of spam with the prevalence of personal computing, the erosion of distributed delivery networks of mail due to fast/lazy/loose whitelists, the ossification of the protocol compounded with decades of backwards compatibility, and the modern tools used to navigate the bazaar of format compliance as it continues to evolve as a moving target. Nevertheless, the conclusion remarks about emails notably resilience to centralisation and enshittification.
I hope that protocols such as ActivityPub will fair just as well, if not better, than email. Although, I’d hazard a guess that the forces of monetization and dark patterns are now much more prevalent than they were in email’s infancy.
deleted by creator
No worries, for some with visual impairments, auditory formats are easier to consume. I wish historic write-ups and technical blogs had better support for screen readers, but many authors have a tendency to use unnecessary embeddings without captions or alt-texts. Good oratores are fine to listen to, even if I don’t always see the slides.
Eh, that summarization was merely written in the literal sence of corporate decision making and economic forces of the market, no deeper meaning ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . While corporat conspiracies occur on occasion (think Enron or High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigations), I think anthropomorphizing large institutions by attributing them with emotions or morals would be naive, e.g: Dangers of anthropomorphizing Oracle. And while the speaker did titled their talk using the contextual phrase “vs Capitalism”, the talk itself is hardly a criticism on business.
Agreed. For what it’s worth, that is the same observation of jurisdiction, regulation, and innovations that were presented by the speaker. The speaker discussed how email hosting providers, corporations such as Google, deviated from the original specification as needed to counter fraud and human errors, such as refusing to treat addressed emails with varying insertions of periods as separate users, preventing the practice of typo namespace squatting.
Perhaps irrelevant to email thanks to ASCII limitations, but another example of implementations justifiably deviating from the generality of original specifications could be Lemmy itself, as the ActivityPub standard doesn’t seem to forbid the use of invisible characters within usernames, a common practice for enabling impersonation on many communication platforms: