Skip to content

Enshittification as explicit threat model #5

@foxcool

Description

@foxcool

Current risks (Section 10.2) cover protocol ossification and network effect failure but do not address gradual centralization of successful implementations: a popular daemon fork adds proprietary extensions, a dominant relay becomes a de facto hub, a well-funded client captures users and extracts rent.
History: email → Gmail dominance, XMPP → Google Talk embrace-extend-extinguish, IRC → Discord/Slack.
Proposal: add enshittification as explicit risk (probability: high, impact: critical) with designed-in mitigations:

Planned centralization/decentralization toggle: protocol allows implementations to centralize in specific pre-designed ways that can be dropped without breaking the network
No undocumented proprietary extensions: extensions MUST be namespaced and documented, undocumented ones are a spec violation
Interoperability test suite: reference tests any implementation must pass, preventing subtle lock-in incompatibilities
Existing mitigations: plugin architecture, spec-first approach, multiple competing implementations

Discussion origin: ASCII moth — "enshittification should be included in the threat model at the early design stage."

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions