Bob Wertz

Choosing our words carefully

I wrote a blog post in early 2019, trying to make a distinction between “open” social platforms that thrived on interoperability compared to “captive” networks that trap you in their system. As an aside, I also noted the difference between “indie” social and “open” social and added this footnote:

I recognize that the concept of an open social network from a large corporation might seem absurd in today’s environment, but you never know.

Five years later, we have Threads, a somewhat open social network from a large corporation with a track record of building toxic captive networks. The word “open” in this case is distinct from “indie,” since no one can ever claim that Meta is a small independent company. But in the case of Threads, they do seem to be moving toward being more open.¹

I think it’s important to make a distinction, between open and captive social networks, but also between open and indie networks.² Our goal should be interoperability between our networks. The indie web is a big part of this effort, driving the technology and the open social philosophy forward. But I believe it’s going to take some of the large players truly adopting open social protocols to make true interoperability a reality.

These layers are all complicated, and how we talk about it matters, especially when talking with less tech savvy audiences. As advocates for interoperability online, I think we need to do a better job communicating how our goals will benefit everyone. Using accessible language is a big part of that effort.

Bob Wertz is a creative director, type designer, Ph.D. student and researcher living in Columbia, South Carolina. He’s been blogging since 2008.