[[literature-note]] ## Unbundling by different names Unbundling is a good analogy, though they come at it from distinct perspectives, have (slightly) different aims and prescribe it to varying depths. - Magic APIs - Daphne Keller 1. [PLATFORM CONTENT REGULATION – SOME MODELS AND THEIR PROBLEMS](http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2019/05/platform-content-regulation-–-some-models-and-their-problems) *magic APIs section is towards the end* 2. [If Lawmakers Don't Like Platforms' Speech Rules, Here's What They Can Do About It. Spoiler: The Options Aren't Great.](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200901/13524045226/if-lawmakers-dont-like-platforms-speech-rules-heres-what-they-can-do-about-it-spoiler-options-arent-great.shtml) *essentially an updated version of 1 for 2020* - Protocols not Platforms - Mike Masnick 1. [Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech](https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-approach-to-free-speech) - Competitive Compatibility / Adversarial Interoperatbility - EFF \[(*There isn't a single document that outlines this, pieced together from different sources*)] 1. [Competitive Compatibility: Year in Review 2020](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/competitive-compatibility-year-review) 2. [Why it’s easier to move country than switch social media](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/social-media-competitive-compatibility) 3. Added 2021-10-08: [Competitive Compatibility: Let's Fix the Internet, Not the Tech Giants](https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2021/10/255710-competitive-compatibility/fulltext) - Middleware - Stanford Working Group on Platform Scale 1. [Report of the Working Group on Platform Scale](https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/publication/report-working-group-platform-scale) 2. [Was Twitter Right To Have Booted Trump? ](https://pairagraph.com/dialogue/4124f75013da40038c4cbff5ebdaaa51/3)*Francis Fukuyama and Jillan C. York debate... sort of* 3. [Fake News and Conspiracy Theories - Francis Fukuyama](https://www.americanpurpose.com/blog/fukuyama/fake-news-and-conspiracy-theories/) --- ![[Pasted image 20210414075443.png]] ![[Pasted image 20210414075523.png]] ![[Pasted image 20210414075510.png]] ![[Pasted image 20210414075455.png]] ### Aim Magic APIs: - Licensing hard-to-duplicate resources to newcomers in markets subject to network effects. (*give users more choices among competing rulesets or rulemakers*) Protocols not Platforms: - Most current solutions will lead to outcomes that will leave us worse off. > we have less central control, less cause to claim “censorship,” more competition, a wider range of approaches, and more control pushed to the end users—all while likely minimizing the reach and impact of content that many people find abusive Competitive Compatibility: - Encourage interoperability and block anticompetitive mergers with or without cooperation of the platform Middleware: - Reduce political threats posed by platform control --- ### Intended Target(s) Magic APIs: - Not explicitly prescribed, but Keller has alluded to challenges making rules specifically targeting 'bigness' Protocols not Platforms: - Envisioned as a universal practice Competitive Compatibility: - Targets 'bigness' but does not necessarily limit it to that - Increased focus on lock-in compared to network effects. Middleware: - Explicitly names Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Twitter but doesn't necessarily exclude others. Targets 'bigness' --- ### Depth of unbundling Magic APIs: - Not explicitly prescribed. Indicative example: > In the platform context, this would mean that Google or Facebook opens up access to the “uncurated” version of its service, including all legal user-generated content, as the foundation for competing user-facing services. Competitors would then offer users some or all of the same content, via a new user interface with their own new content ranking and removal policies. Protocols not Platforms: - Not prescribed. - Goes to the extent of moving data out of platforms. Competitive Compatibility: - Does not specify any upper limit but maintains that a user should be able to delegate all aspects of interaction to a third party Middleware: - Varies between performing 'essential functions' and 'supplmental filters'. - Advocates an intermediate role: > provides filters for specific news stories and develops ranking and labeling algorithms, which are then integrated into the main platform --- ### User Data Magic APIs: - No prescription, but lists this explicitly as a sticking point. Protocols not Platforms: - In its most ambitious version - every user will manage their own data via 'blobs', but that's not a prerequisite. Competitive Compatibility: - Address harms with privacy law - Limit commercial use of data Middleware: - No specific prescription - Infer status quo based on its reference to platforms being able to retain their business models. --- ### Degree(s) of Regulation Magic APIs: - Not explicit, but reference to 'unbundling requirements analogous to telecom' implies that it would follow from some sort of regulation. - Approaches it from bigness. Protocols not Platforms: - Meant to be market driven. Competitive Compatibility: - Suggests regulation to block anti-circumvention effects. - Approaches it from smallness Middleware: - Interoperability/Opening up APIs may happen by consent or decree. But expresses likelihood that legislation may be required to open up APIs. - Prescribes standards/guidelines that middleware companies will need to adhere to. Can be outlined by a regulator or the platforms themselves. --- ### Business Models Magic APIs: - No prescription, but indicates allocation of a revenue split (ads) will be complex Protocols not Platforms: - Move away from inter-platform competition. *Though some are viewing Twitters Bluesky as a means to compete/differentiate from Facebook* - Agents that interface between blobs in data stores and services - With data and privacy controlled by users, data hungry models may not thrive. So a return to intent-based or brand advertising. - There will be competition for business models. - Token-based Competitive Compatibility: - No specific prescription. Middleware: - Revenue Sharing - Directly selling subscription or ads ## Open questions/issues - What? More Intermediaries? - Establishing trust/security - Privacy? - Why would platforms change/cooperate? - How are these approaches better than user-controls? - Should this be limited to 'bigness'? If yes, on what principles that do not seem arbitrary. - Complexity for users - Larger systemic incentives unchanged (media will still report on egregious content, etc.) - Bad content stays up - More bubbles - Network effects could still apply to middleware solutions and one of them could accrue a significant influence on narratives - How to avoid being in similar position again E.g. Limited transparency, dominant solutions, etc. - How will this impact different layers of the moderation stack? Should it? # Scribble --- ### Magic APIs: Protocols not Platforms: Competitive Compatibility: Middleware: What lessons can be draw from search spot bids? presupposes a level of technical adeptness, and most fundamentally, intent to expend so much effort. https://www.blockpartyapp.com How to balance oversight and control Look up ACCESS Act, PACT ACT and EU regulation around APIs (Digital Markets?) Should middleware be limited to Social Media? FK report says Yes. But on what grounds? Can we base those in sound principles? Arguably not, but what would middleware for companies at different layers of the stack look like? Comparison factors - Targets - Backed by regulation? - Treatment of user data ## Comparison |Type|Target(s)|Governance?|User Data| | -- | -- | -- | -- | | Middleware | | -Law for use of open APIs <br> -Regulator to prevent criminal/nefarious acts | | Protocols not Platforms | | Competitive Compatibility | | Magic APIs | Middleware Advantages - Control, Competition, Transparency and flexibility through choice