is developing some damn cool tech: Distributed programming! Leading the way on a secure P2P protocol (OCapN)! A WebAssembly toolkit!

But: is "cool tech" what matters? *Why* are we trying to make cool tech? What are the *social implications* of making this technology?

I gave a talk on this recently: "Protocols and Purpose in a Global Democratic Crisis" c-tube.c-base.org/w/f9pF5pwxX8…

*None* of the decentralized social networks today are robust enough to handle the threats facing vulnerable people and activists today. Not the present-day fediverse, not Bluesky/ATProto. What can we do?

What can we do? Is there hope? Is it possible to build something better?

Spritely was born out of this work, and the strive to create infrastructure allowing for "Networks of Consent". More on that here: spui25.nl/programma/we-can-cha…

Social Media: We Can Change the Defaults

Christine Lemmer-Webber, best known as co-author of ActivityPub, the decentralized social networking protocol, will speak about the crisis technologists face. Why must we revise the default assumptions of the web 2.

^SPUI25

I love computers. When people say "Computers were a mistake!" it makes me sad.

But it's had to blame people. The direction computers have gone in, the experience people largely have had, is a loss of agency and empowerment.

How do we bring that back, and do better than ever even?

User-empowering technology is a lot of work, corporations aren't motivated to build it. We need research and development of new tech that changes the game from an org that isn't bound by pushing profit.

And that's why @spritelyinst.bsky.social is a nonprofit research lab.

So... what are we doing?

We're building cool tech:
- Goblins, p2p distributed programming: spritely.institute/goblins/
- Hoot, a WebAssembly toolkit (and Scheme->WASM compiler) spritely.institute/hoot/
- OCapN, a secure distributed p2p networked protocol ocapn.org/

But... what are we *doing* with these things?