使用协议,而非服务
Use protocols, not services

原始链接: https://notnotp.com/notes/use-protocols-not-services/

## 优先考虑协议,而非服务 本文发表于2026年,认为依赖集中的*服务*(如Discord)会损害在线匿名性和隐私,而使用开放的*协议*则能抵抗审查和控制。 目前,政府可以轻易地通过一份法律要求,迫使服务识别用户或限制内容。然而,IRC、XMPP和Matrix等协议是去中心化的——没有单一实体控制它们。要使其合规,需要向无数独立运营者施压,这是一项不切实际的任务。 仅仅更换服务并非解决之道,因为新的平台不可避免地会面临类似的压力。关键在于采用协议,就像电子邮件的SMTP一样。虽然电子邮件基础设施在某种程度上是集中的,但协议本身允许用户更换提供商或自行托管,即使某个提供商失败,也能保持通信。 选择协议赋予用户权力,并防止单点故障,从而保护用户免受公司或政府的账户封禁和数据控制。

一个黑客新闻的讨论集中在使用像XMPP这样的开放协议,而不是依赖Discord这样的中心化服务的好处。最初的帖子链接到一篇倡导协议而非服务的文章,引发了关于构建独立通信平台的对话。 用户强调XMPP的可扩展性——它在不破坏核心功能的情况下整合功能的能力——以及由于现有的XML优化而带来的性能优势。人们提出了对身份和平台依赖的担忧,并建议使用像Atproto这样的去中心化身份解决方案。 Freenode/Libera IRC的分裂被引用为基于协议的弹性的成功案例,允许一个社区迁移离开一个受到损害的服务。最终,讨论强调了互操作性和拥有你的通信身份的重要性,独立于任何单一提供者。
相关文章

原文

The Internet is almost anonymous and privacy-preserving by design. I mean, unless some administrator actively tries to track you, there is no built-in identity layer. What breaks both properties is the centralization of communication onto closed platforms, where identification becomes possible either by the hosting company itself, or by governments compelling them to cooperate.

After recent events, it is time for us to start using protocols again instead of services.

Services are easy targets

A government that wants to identify users, censor content, or enforce compliance only needs to send one letter to one company. One subpoena, one court order, one regulatory demand: the service likely complies or faces fines, lawsuits, or bans.

This is happening right now. Governments worldwide are passing laws that require platforms to verify the age of their users. Discord is voluntarily rolling out mandatory "teen-by-default" settings until proof of majority (by submitting a face scan or, God forbid, a government-issued ID), likely anticipating future regulatory obligations.

None of this could happen with a protocol. You cannot require age verification on IRC, XMPP, ActivityPub, Nostr, or Matrix, because there is no single entity to compel. Each server operator makes their own decisions. A government would need to individually pressure thousands of independent operators across dozens of jurisdictions, which is a legislative and enforcement impossibility. And even if one server complied, users would simply move to another.

Switching services solves nothing

After Discord's announcement, the instinct is to migrate to another service. This is pointless. The new service will either operate under the same jurisdiction and face the same rules, or it will be offshore and eventually blocked or pressured once it becomes large enough to matter. You are just moving from one regulable entity to another.

The actual solution is to stop depending on a specific commercial service and start using a protocol. This is not a radical idea. We already do it with email. SMTP is a protocol. You can switch providers, self-host, or use any combination.

Email may not seem to be the best example since it has become an oligopoly where Google, Microsoft, and maybe also Apple control the vast majority of the email infrastructure. But actually, this is a good example to show how protocols are resilient. Let's say Google bans your account, then you can move to another provider and still reach every Gmail user. In a more extreme scenario, let's even say Google and Microsoft discontinue their service (in your specific region, for example), even block any inbound message from you. Not ideal, but SMTP implementations still exist and they still work even in a very degraded mode. You'd need to migrate (as well as some of your connections), but there is absolutely no need to reimplement anything. That is the difference with a service like Discord.

On a centralized service, if your account is deleted or banned, you are gone for good.

Use protocols

Every time we choose a service over a protocol, we opt into a system where a single company can be compelled to identify us, restrict us, or hand over our data, to their profit or out government's advantage.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com