add two draft blog posts

content/news/152-every-major-tech-company-hates-you.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+author: jeremy
+title: 'Every Major Internet Company Hates You (Protocols Not Platforms Pt. 1)'
+date: '2019-01-01 00:00:00'
+---
+Every major internet proactively _damages_ user experience to serve their own interests.
+
+In a competitive economy, this is exceedingly unusual. But we'll discuss the why later. First, let's define the problem. 
+
+## The Problem
+
+Claim: All of the largest consumer internet company actively spend their time and resources engineering degradations in user-experience.
+
+Below are examples from Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Reddit, and YouTube.
+
+This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of user hostility, but instead to provide an unambiguous example for each.
+
+### Facebook
+
+Facebook had (has!) a fully working, web-based version of their messaging platform.
+
+They actively disabled on mobile to force more downloads of the app.
+
+![Hostile Facebook Messenger](https://spee.ch/@hostiletech/facebookmessenger2.jpg)
+
+### Apple
+
+We could talk at length about Apple's hostility towards free software and the ability for users to own and control their own devices.
+
+But let's look at the most unambiguous example possible: Apple _actively slows down_ old phones to encourage more sales!
+
+![Hostile Apple](https://spee.ch/@hostiletech/slowios.jpg)
+
+See [this](http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-battery-throttling-gives-customers-reason-to-distrust-2017-12) for the full details on this story.
+
+### Reddit
+
+Evidently, Reddit _really_ wants people to use their mobile app.
+
+It current takes five clicks to view a GIF hosted on a non-Reddit site on mobile. It used to take one.
+
+![Hostile Reddit Mobile](https://spee.ch/@hostiletech/redditmobile.gif)
+
+Not because there is anything wrong with the web experience, of course. But forcing people onto mobile means Reddit can collect a lot more information about you.
+
+### YouTube
+
+We could talk a lot about how YouTube's treatment of creators, as well as it's pro-censorship policies, constitute hostility.
+
+But here's an even clearer example:
+
+![Hostile YouTube](https://spee.ch/@hostiletech/youtubefire.jpg)
+
+YouTube recently disabled all FireTV users from accessing YouTube for no reason other than to get back at Amazon.
+
+## How Unusual This Is
+
+Some people may read these examples and shrug. Companies are greedy. Is it really surprising they treat users this way?
+
+And this response is partially right. Companies _are_ greedy.
+
+But in a competitive economy, greed is typically satisfied by making your services _better_, not _worse_. When the local pizzaria offers free water, free bathrooms, clean tables, and sale prices, it does this not out avarice, not benevolence!
+
+So the question becomes: why is this possible? Why are large tech companies able to get away with such abusive behavior?
+
+And the answer is these platforms are not nearly as competitive as restaurants.
+
+If the pizza place jacks up prices, I go to another pizza place. When Facebook treats me like crap, I complain about it... on Facebook.
+
+But not all of our tech experiences are like this!
+
+If we look at other aspects of the internet, it's much more like restaurants than Facebook. And that's because a lot of the tech driving the web is a protocol, not a platform.
+
+My browser cannot treat me like crap, because HTTP is an open standard. Anyone else can make a browser, like anyone else can make a restaurant.
+
+The same is true for my email client or my BitTorrent client.
+
+The solution to this problem is to build protocols, not platforms. 
+
+When we build protocols, people can leave. When we build protocols, it's the users, not the middlemen, who retain control.
+
+The innovation of blockchain is the most powerful development in over a decade in making this possible. We'll talk about this more in [Part 2](https://lbry.io/news/protocols-not-platforms-pt2).

content/news/153-blockchain-is-love-blockchain-is-life.md

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+---
+author: jeremy
+title: 'Blockchain Is Love, Blockchain Is Life (Protocols Not Platforms Pt. 2)'
+date: '2019-01-01 00:00:00'
+---
+
+Blockchain technology currently has a hype to substance ratio rapidly approaching infinity. And as a team of people who are skeptical of 90+% of proposed blockchain applications, we're hesitant to contribute to that (_ed._: wait until you see what I changed the title to).
+
+But there's one area where we think extremely plausible blockchain will improve the world: the development of open standards and protocols, and consquently more user-friendly technology.
+
+## The Status Quo
+
+In [Part 1](https://lbry.io/news/every-major-tech-company-hates-you), we covered how existing tech companies demonstrate active hostility towards users. If haven't read this or are not already convinced of this problem, start here.
+
+So: platforms = control = hostility
+
+And: protocol = freedom = love & life
+
+When things are developed as a protocol, there is no question that the abuse potential is lower, and the long-term user-experience is better.
+
+The problem is that frequently a protocol never gets developed at all.
+
+This is a problem of incentives. Building great technology takes time and effort, which means it takes money.
+
+Tim Berners-Lee, who is widely credited as the father of the web, made a lot of people rich. But he wasn't one of them.
+
+That's because Tim created HTTP as a protocol. That meant Tim didn't own it, and Tim couldn't make any money directly off of it.
+
+So while protocols create better experiences, they often never get developed, because there is no funding or capital to drive the creation of them.
+
+## The What and Why Of Protocols
+
+Just what do we mean when we say protocol? And how is it different from a platform?
+
+A platform means proprietary code running on servers controlled and managed by the company that created and owns the platform. It leaves the company fully in control.
+
+Suppose I wanted to build my own interface for Facebook. Perhaps because I want actual control over what shows up on my news feed, rather than leaving it to Facebook's algorithms. Currently, it would legally questionable for me to do this, and even it was legal, it would be fully legal for Facebook to block my interface from loading "its" data.
+
+But if Facebook was implemented as a protocol, it would mean an open standard that anyone can follow.
+
+Anyone could write a Facebook view, or a Facebook app. If Facebook, Inc. wanted to start acting hostile towards its users, people would simply stop using the apps released by Facebook, Inc. and instead use ones made by other parties.
+
+To be clear: this is possible today. It's been possible for decades. There's no technological barriers to creating Facebook Protocol, only ones of economics and incentives.
+
+## Enter Blockchain
+
+Now, suppose we wanted to create Facebook Protocol in a world where blockchain exists. Let's call it PeopleChain.
+
+PeopleChain is a blockchain database that stores the same data that Facebook would. It stores profiles, posts, user friendships, groups, etc.
+
+But because it is a _blockchain_ database, no one owns it. Anyone can access and read the data inside of it, and anyone can build services that use it (note: this doesn't imply some fully transparent version of Facebook, it would still be possible to have analogous privacy and access rules via encryption).
+
+And in addition, because it is a blockchain database, it means that it utilizes some kind of blockchain token.
+
+This token has value in proportion to the usage and success of the network.
+
+This is a revolution in the incentives around protocol creation.
+
+It means those that discover and utilize a new protocol or network when it is small and young can reap substantial value by being their first. This helps solve the incentive problems around being a first-mover and using a likely initially inferior service. 
+
+It provides a source of funding for the development of the protocol. The creators can use the token to pay for the salaries and equipment required to get it started.
+
+It also aligns incentives: the developers have incentive to make the protocol maximally successful. If they take actions that users dislike, the service can be forked, and anyone can create a new version.