# Free and Open Platforms: Overview

**NOTE: This doc is intended merely to state the problem at hand in all Internet platforms and to outline the necessary properties for any platform that wants to solve this problem. The specific protocol and technologies used to enforce these properties will be discussed in a separate doc.**

The internet has enabled the emergence of incredibly large and valuable networks that have transformed virtually every aspect of modern life from social media to the sharing economy to user-generated content platforms. These networks typically exist on centralized platforms that are owned and operated by a single entity. Through their monopolistic control over their platforms, operators can unilaterally decide on issues that impact the entire community such as content and monetization policy.

Once a platform gains a sufficient network effect, the users of the platform are further disenfranchised since their ability to exit a platform with oppressive policies becomes less and less of a threat for operators. Thus we arrive at our present situation, an Internet dominated by a few mega-platforms whose operators have incentives that are not only misaligned but completely divorced from the welfare of the communities they are intended to serve. [CA: I feel like one missing point is proprietary software ususally prevents migration as well. If there exists no better alternative users will put up with abuse (overpayment, over advertising etc). An exit must by definition include a situation equally as valuable.]()

A healthier Internet requires recalibrating the balance of power between the operator of a platform and its users. The network effect that users build up by joining and contributing to a platform should not work against them [CA: can probs delete the "and ..."]and solely benefit the operator. Instead, healthy Internet communities will need to align the incentives of all relevant parties: operators, moderators [CA: producers?](), and users.

Accomplishing this will [CA: phrasing feels strange]() require providing two rights to platform users: [CA: maybe make these bullet points?]() **the right of individual exit and the right of collective exit**.

Firstly, any user that wants to exit a platform for any reason should be able to do so with minimal friction. This would entail being able to preserve (some) notion of identity across platforms and the ability to move any user-authored content onto a different platform. Of course, exiting a platform will always entail some lost utility from losing access to the network effect of the platform and potentially having to rebuild a social graph elsewhere, but minimizing the friction involved is a key goal of this project. [CA: I think minimal friction in interaction with the software as well. I think this is a key point for arguing the open sourceness of everything. While obvious to you and me, still a point worth making. Migrating accounts on ActivityPub between closed source applications could result in *heavy* friction, migrating between open source ones would be minimal. Think using WriteAs without WriteFreely existing.]()

The other key goal is the right of collective exit. Often participation in a community becomes so valuable (due to network effects, established social graph, etc) that individual exit is infeasible no matter how draconian the platform policies become. These cases are ripe for exploitation by operators in current internet platforms since operators may charge whatever rent on users they wish; either directly in the form of commission rates or indirectly in the form of advertisements. In this case, the incentives of operators are no longer dependent on the continued welfare of the users of the platform.

To rectify this, [CA: i"there must be"]() a mechanism for collective exit in which the entire community can elect to replace the operator or any other powerful entity in the community (eg content moderator). If the vote succeeds, then the entire community should atomically port over to the new operator (or recognize a new moderator [CA: R"etc"]() or whatever) as smoothly as possible. The voting mechanism must be out of the control of the operator [CA: switch order, "in order ... the voting..."]() in order to ensure the integrity of the vote. This will allow platforms to enjoy the [CA: R"benefits of running a network with a centralized operator..."]() efficiency and simplicty gains of running a network with a centralized operator while also providing a decentralized means to replace any centralized authority that is abusing their control of the platform. [CA: i"Centralizing in a decentralized manner" or something else short and sweet. :)]()

A key realization to note is that coordinating a community to vote on a governance proposal and replacing a key entity in the operation of a platform will still be a costly but [CA: maybe reword? ->]() newly feasible affair. This still gives operators enough leverage to extract value from running a network and provides enough incentive for operators to support [CA: R"large-scale communities."]() communities at large-scale. However, [CA: I'd drop the however]() the governance mechanism shifts the current balance of power more towards the users as they can now effectively exit an oppressive operator while still retaining their platform and network effect, and the threat of replacement itself will act as an effective deterrent against any operator trying to exploit a community.

Sangam is working on implementing protocols for building platforms that give communities an effective and cost-minimal way to exit either individually or collectively. Operators will no longer be able to hold communities "hostage". By aligning the incentives of both the stewards and members of internet platforms, Sangam hopes to foster a healthier generation of internet communities.

[CA: I think it is important to note that these rights need to be added without giving up major benefits that users can extract from platforms. Privacy might be mildly lost. Censorship resistance might be gained.]()