Advogato

» see advogato.org as it lived, on the wayback machine

~ the obit ~

advogato was for a specific crowd, and i was an engineer standing next to it, not in it. i wrote code, i lived on donanimhaber and frmtr with my hardware list in my forum signature, and my open-source world was downloading things and reading changelogs, not certifying other developers on an american trust graph. advogato was where the free software priesthood kept its books.

raph levien built it in 1999 as the free software developer's advocate. the clever part was the trust metric. instead of every account counting the same, you certified other people at ranks like apprentice or master, and an attack-resistant piece of math decided whose word actually carried. it was an early, serious attempt at a question every community still fights over, who gets to say who belongs.

the guest list was the real flex. richard stallman had an account. eric raymond and alan cox were on it, the kind of names that sat at the top of the linux and gnu story. steve rainwater took over maintenance in 2007 and kept the lights on for another decade, but spam crept in and the developers who mattered drifted to newer places. the running site was shut down in 2016 and folded into archive.org, still readable but no longer alive.

~ the rap sheet ~

~ the trust metric ~

the trust metric is the reason academics still cite advogato. levien's model was built to resist sybil attacks, where one person spins up a thousand fake accounts to fake a reputation, by treating trust as flow through a network with a limited source. it got written up in papers on reputation systems for years. every modern version of this problem, from stack overflow karma to the blue checkmarks that later turned into a mess, is walking ground advogato mapped first.

~ what survived ~

advogato mattered more as a proof of concept than as a hangout. it showed that an online community could try to measure trust on purpose instead of leaving it to whoever shouted loudest, and it showed how hard that is to keep alive once the founders lose interest. the site is gone. the question it asked, how do you let strangers vouch for strangers without the whole thing collapsing into spam, is more urgent now than it was in 1999.

@}-->--

              )
             (_)
            .-'-.
            |   |
            |   |
            |   |
            |   |
          __|   |__   .-.
       .-'  |   |  `-:   :
      :     `---'     :-'
       `-._       _.-'
           '""""""

« previous  ·  random  ·  next »