"Are you a member?" the cashier asks, her tone friendly, though there's an unmistakable hint that the answer should be obvious.
"Yes, I am," I reply without hesitation. "Do you need my email address?"
She nods ever so slightly, her face impassive. A barely audible sigh slips out, as if Christmas shopping has once again tested even the most seasoned of cashiers. "Yes, your email, please," she says, preparing to enter it into the system.
I begin dictating, but just as I reach the "at," she cuts me off abruptly.
"Oh, by the way: our system doesn't support Gmail. But if you have an iPhone, you can use your iCloud address instead."
This, of course, is a fictional scenario. A point of sale system that doesn't support email addresses based on providers would be completely unreasonable. Email is designed to work regardless of provider, that's the point. The internet has always been about creating standards that connect everything and everyone, no matter the platform or service.
The word "internet" is a portmanteau that doesn't just mean "international network," but rather reflects the idea of a network of networks - interconnected systems that form a whole. "Inter" comes from Latin and means "between," emphasizing the role of the internet in linking different networks and enabling communication between them.
So why have the big tech companies locked us into their platforms? Why strand us on small islands, unable to communicate with each other?
Journalist and author Cory Doctorow created a blog post, later published in Locus magazine last January, to describe "enshittification" - the steps platforms or services go through before their inevitable collapse. In it, Doctorow describes how platforms initially offer loss-making services to attract new users, then gradually degrade the quality to maximize shareholder profits. When users and providers are locked in, there is no incentive to maintain quality.
To counter this, Doctorow proposes two principles: "End-to-end," where users get what they ask for, not what the platform wants to present, and "Right to Leave," meaning users should easily be able to switch platforms without losing their content or data.
Imagine living in a fantastic, free (WOW!) rental apartment with the latest amenities and a committed landlord. However, the lease includes a clause stating you will be monitored every second, both at home and when you're out walking about or shopping. The landlord also rings every five minutes to introduce new neighbors.
Over time, the apartment that was once so nice starts to deteriorate, and its standard worsens. The constant introductions of new (but now also old) neighbors begin to get tiresome, especially when you've already met most of them. The landlord suggests that if you want to maintain the quality you're used to or avoid being introduced to neighbors, you must sign a new lease with rent. Naturally, you don't want to do that, so you continue living under the same contract. After all, it's still free, despite all the problems.
But the living conditions keep getting worse, and eventually, you decide to move. The lease you signed turns out to include another clause, which forces you to move to another apartment with the same landlord, or else you must leave all your belongings behind.
It may seem crazy, but this situation can be likened to social media, where users are locked in and forced to accept increasingly poor quality with no way out if they want to keep their contacts and followers. In contrast, there is the Fediverse, where principles of user freedom and control are often upheld, because doing otherwise would be an infringement on users' rights.
The Fediverse can be seen as a rebellion against the big companies, where the users themselves build their social media and services that offer the same experience without privacy violations or algorithms that limit content. Examples of services in the Fediverse include Mastodon (instead of Twitter), Pixelfed (instead of Instagram), Peertube and Loops (instead of YouTube and TikTok).
These platforms are open as anyone can set up their own server and control the content. The best part is that all servers can communicate with each other, much like how email works. For example, you can follow users on Mastodon and Peertube, regardless of which server or platform they belong to. This is made possible by the ActivityPub protocol, which works independently of the provider and lacks annoying algorithms.
The Fediverse is therefore not just about alternative platforms, but about taking back control of our digital lives. It's a return to the internet principles of the past, such as openness, standards, and freedom, where users themselves are in charge without sacrificing privacy or freedom. It's about being part of an open network, on your own terms.
And we sure as hell shouldn't have to leave our shit behind when we move to a new address.