Re: How the father of the World Wide Web plans to reclaim it from Facebook and Google

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Adrian here.

Google, Facebook etc. have already created their internal, proprietary
"Linked Datas", be it Knowledge Graph or Open Graph. What would they
gain from adopting a standards-based Linked Data and SoLiD?

Being in control of both centralized data platforms and web browsers,
they are in a perfect position to consume structured data from the
web. By giving developers incentive to markup pages with structured
data because it leads to better search results, by crunching openly
available datasets etc.

Why should they adopt a standard approach? Why should they make it
easier for outside developers to publish and consume structured data?
They have the monopoly now, and doing so they would only create
competition for themselves.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie
<> wrote:
> Tim,
> Take a deep breathe and think before you respond.
> I intentionally made two clear statements in my last email:
> 1. I am playing devil's advocate
> 2. I am all for open standards and spend the majority of my time promoting
> them (and in fact working on developing them)
> The reality of how the world works is that the directors of listed companies
> are legally obligated to make profits. It's a bad system that forces people
> to focus on short term gain (profits) over long term (investing in people,
> both cutomers and employees). This is a well researched fact but the topic
> for another day.
> The majority of the profits made by some of the largest listed tech
> companies are made because they farm user data. Adopting SoLiD would mean
> abandoning their primary source of revenue.
> Therefor I think it is highly unlikely any of those companies will adopt
> SoLiD and would actively try to stomp out any competition that used SoLiD as
> I believe users would prefer a system that allowed them control of their
> data if that system offered a comparable service.
> I am not being critical of SoLiD's ideas or principles, I sincerely believe
> in them myself, but I think that if the project is going to succeed then
> those involved need to stop focusing purely on the purity of their
> architecture and figure out how to create economic incentives for the
> projects growth.
> The ability to scale is only really useful if you do!
> On 19 August 2016 at 12:26, Timothy Holborn <>
> wrote:
>> Adrian,
>> Your assumptions suggest being human is of less a concern than being a
>> director or shareholder. Therefore the right thing to do for other humans is
>> irrelevant.
>> I hope you process your own food, can produce and treat yourself for your
>> own medical ailments and otherwise know how to live without needing to act
>> in good faith towards others.
>> Slavery was a rather good business model too, perhaps that is another area
>> of interest for you.
>> Nb: where the devil cannot go, he sends a woman.
>> Keep that in mind for your future endeavours.
>> Timh.
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, 8:21 PM Adrian Hope-Bailie <>
>> wrote:
>>> Kingsley,
>>> I am playing devil's advocate here but I don't think you have answered my
>>> question.
>>> Gaining agility is not a business case.
>>> I am all for open standards, I spend the majority of my time working to
>>> promote them but I am still trying to understand what the economic incentive
>>> is for any service provider to adopt SoLiD as opposed to controlling their
>>> user's data.
>>> Google, Apple and  Microsoft control the end-user experience for the
>>> majority of users on the Web by giving them free browsers, email, social
>>> etc. In return they make money from controlling the data those products and
>>> services generate.
>>> Are you surprised that the browser vendors all actively block initiatives
>>> at W3C that would promote an open identity system that would unlock their
>>> user data silos? There are always politically astute excuses but let's be
>>> honest, if the browsers wanted to they could have made adopting WebID an
>>> easy user friendly experience and the world would be full of people who all
>>> have their own WebID that is used to log into all the services they use on
>>> the Web.
>>> I am certainly not assuming that these companies are ignorant or myopic,
>>> quite the opposite. I think they will continue to keep users locked into
>>> their semi-open ecosystems by competing to offer the best browsers (that
>>> mostly adhere to open standards) and other free services. But they will
>>> never change the many services they offer to allow users to export and
>>> control their own data.
>>> In fact, I'd go as far as to say that for them to do that would be in
>>> contravention of their legal obligations to their shareholders because it
>>> would be such a blatantly bad commercial move.
>>> On 18 August 2016 at 01:04, Kingsley Idehen <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Adrian,
>>>> On 8/16/16 8:51 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
>>>> What is the business case for a service provider to adopt Solid?
>>>> There is always a business case for open standards, and it goes as
>>>> follows:
>>>> Agility to mix and match "best of class" technologies that underlie
>>>> solutions, at any given point in time.
>>>> When the Web's original open standards stack (URIs, URLs, HTTP, and
>>>> HTML) arrived it unveiled the World Wide Web, an ecosystem that laid the
>>>> foundation for Google, Facebook, Amazon, and many others. It also enabled
>>>> behemoths like Apple (struggling badly at the time) to pivot and reinvent
>>>> themselves.
>>>> Why would Google, Facebook or anyone that build's their business on user
>>>> data choose to let users take that away?
>>>> When the World Wide Web arrived, folks asked the question: Why would
>>>> Microsoft allow anyone succeed without embracing their technology stack and
>>>> related ecosystems.
>>>> SoLiD is just a collection of existing open standards and best
>>>> practices.
>>>> Who will offer users a comparable service to these silos that attracts
>>>> them away but adopts Solid and can still make enough money to survive
>>>> competing with the biggest tech companies in the world?
>>>> See my comment about Microsoft and the World Wide Web.  This is what
>>>> happens with technology and industry evolution. Google and Facebook aren't
>>>> static behemoths and they also understand history. Don't presume myopia and
>>>> ignorance on the part of any of these companies, they have too many smart
>>>> people on their payrolls.
>>>> The point is not whether or not the architecture is easy the point is
>>>> whether it has the potential to make anybody any money because if it doesn't
>>>> then I think you will have a hard time persuading people to use it, no
>>>> matter how well it scales.
>>>> SoLiD scales and it simply adds dimensions to the Web ecosystem to be
>>>> exploited by behemoths, startups, and smartups.
>>>> New business and business models will coalesce around the Web's
>>>> read-write dimension. That's an inevitability due to the nature of privacy.
>>>> Kingsley
>>>> On 15 August 2016 at 14:11, Melvin Carvalho <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 15 August 2016 at 14:08, Timothy Holborn <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Solid isn't finished yet.
>>>>> Solid is at version 0.6 rather than 1.0.
>>>>> But I dont really know what more can be added to it to get it to v1.0.
>>>>> Im using it on a daily basis and it works fine.  Some people are
>>>>> perfectionists I suppose :)
>>>>> In any case its IMHO light years ahead of where the rest of the web is,
>>>>> even if you only take small parts of it and use it.
>>>>> You can also argue that solid will never be finished, in the sense
>>>>> that, the web will never be "finished".
>>>>> Its definitely something that can be used today.
>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, 10:07 PM Melvin Carvalho
>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15 August 2016 at 11:50, Adrian Hope-Bailie
>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>>> From the article: "The question is whether architecture will be
>>>>>>>> enough."
>>>>>>>> The answer is no.
>>>>>>>> We live in world where few ideas succeed without a strong business
>>>>>>>> case. The architecture is the easy part.
>>>>>>> Architecture is deceptively difficult to get right.  The vast
>>>>>>> majority if systems start to fall over as they scale.  The web and REST are
>>>>>>> two architectures that buck that trend and just get stronger as they scale.
>>>>>>> Solid is the next evolution in that architectural trend, imho,
>>>>>>> because it simply embraces the points that made the web great, and extends
>>>>>>> it a little bit, while being 100% backwards compatible.  Right now, it's the
>>>>>>> only system that I know of, with this property, in fact, nothing else is
>>>>>>> close.  So this in itself, the ability to scale to billions of users, is a
>>>>>>> business case.  Quietly facebook adopted the social graph approach to the
>>>>>>> web, and web architectural principles with their graph protocol, and also an
>>>>>>> implementation of WebID.
>>>>>>> I think what's true is that few ideas succeed, because simply, we
>>>>>>> have a lot of ideas and a lot of competition.  Having a business can help,
>>>>>>> but the right architecture is the magic sauce to get through those
>>>>>>> scalability barriers.
>>>>>>> I personally think Solid is the business opportunity of a lifetime,
>>>>>>> perhaps even bigger than the first web.  Im certainly investing on that
>>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>>>> On 14 August 2016 at 10:49, Timothy Holborn
>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Anders,
>>>>>>>>> I'm using this email to respond to both [1] in creds; in addition
>>>>>>>>> to the below, with some lateral considerations.
>>>>>>>>> See this video where Mr Gates and Mr Musk are discussing in China
>>>>>>>>> AI [2].
>>>>>>>>> I haven't fully considered the implications, whilst i've certainly
>>>>>>>>> been considering the issue; i have not fully considered it, and as modern
>>>>>>>>> systems become subject to government contracts as may be the case with
>>>>>>>>> enterprise solutions such as those vended by IBM [3], may significantly
>>>>>>>>> lower the cost for government / enterprise, in seeking to achieve very
>>>>>>>>> advanced outcomes - yet i'm unsure the full awareness of how these systems
>>>>>>>>> work, what potential exists for unintended outcomes when work by
>>>>>>>>> web-scientists[4][5] becomes repurposed without their explicit and full
>>>>>>>>> consideration of the original designers for any extended use of their works,
>>>>>>>>> what the underlying considerations are by those who are concerned [6][7] and
>>>>>>>>> how these systems may interact with more advanced HID as i've kinda tried to
>>>>>>>>> describe recently to an audience here [8] and has been further discussed
>>>>>>>>> otherwise [9] [10].
>>>>>>>>> I'm a little concerned about the under-resourcing that seems to
>>>>>>>>> plague Manu's / Dave's original vision (that included WebDHT) to the
>>>>>>>>> consultative approach that i believed had alot of merit in how it may
>>>>>>>>> interact with the works of RWW at the time (alongside WebID) which have al
>>>>>>>>> progressed, yet, not seemingly to a solution that i think is 'fit for
>>>>>>>>> purpose' in attending to the issues before us.
>>>>>>>>> I have considered the need for people to own their own biometric
>>>>>>>>> signatures.  I have considered the work by 'mico-project'[11] seems to be a
>>>>>>>>> good supporter of these future works, particularly given the manner in which
>>>>>>>>> these works support LDP and other related technologies...
>>>>>>>>> But the future is still unknown, and what worries me most; is those
>>>>>>>>> who know most about A.I. may not be able to speak about it as a citizen or
>>>>>>>>> stakeholder in the manner defined by way of a magna carta, such as is the
>>>>>>>>> document that hangs on my wall when making such considerations more broadly
>>>>>>>>> in relation to my contributory work/s.
>>>>>>>>> i understand this herein; contains an array of fragments; yet, am
>>>>>>>>> trying to format schema that leads others to the spot in which i'm
>>>>>>>>> processing broader ideas around what, where and how; progress may be
>>>>>>>>> accelerated and indeed adopted by those capable of pushing it forward.
>>>>>>>>> I remember the team (in RWW years) wrote a
>>>>>>>>> bunch of things in GO, which is what the IPFS examples showcase, and without
>>>>>>>>> providing exhaustive links, i know Vint has been working in the field of
>>>>>>>>> inter-planetary systems [13], therein also understanding previous issues
>>>>>>>>> relating to JSON-LD support (as noted in [1] or [14] ), which in-turn may
>>>>>>>>> also relate to other statements made overtime about my view that some of the
>>>>>>>>> works incubated by credentials; but not subject to IG or potential WG
>>>>>>>>> support at present - may be better off being developed within the WebID
>>>>>>>>> community as an additional constituent of work that may work interoperable
>>>>>>>>> with WebID-TLS related systems.
>>>>>>>>> Too many Ideas!!!
>>>>>>>>> (perhaps some have merit...)
>>>>>>>>> Tim.H.
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>>>>>> [5]
>>>>>>>>> [6]
>>>>>>>>> [7]
>>>>>>>>> [8] (perhaps not the best reference, but has a bunch of ideas in
>>>>>>>>> it:
>>>>>>>>> [9]
>>>>>>>>> [10]
>>>>>>>>> [11]
>>>>>>>>> [12]
>>>>>>>>> [13]
>>>>>>>>> [14]
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 at 14:47 Anders Rundgren
>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-08-11 15:16, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > Really good article,
>>>>>>>>>> mentions Solid and other technologies.  WebID is mentioned by the author in
>>>>>>>>>> the comments too ... > >
>>>>>>>>>> One of the
>>>>>>>>>> problems with the Web is that there is no easy way letting a provider know
>>>>>>>>>> where you come from (=where your Web resources are).  This is one reason why
>>>>>>>>>> OpenID rather created more centralization.  The same problem is in payments
>>>>>>>>>> where the credit-card number is used to find your bank through complex
>>>>>>>>>> centralized registers. Both of these use-cases can be addressed by having
>>>>>>>>>> URLs + other related data such as keys in something like a digital wallet
>>>>>>>>>> which you carry around. There is a snag though: Since each use-case needs
>>>>>>>>>> special logic, keys, attributes etc. it seems hard (probably impossible),
>>>>>>>>>> coming up with a generic Web-browser solution making such schemes rely on
>>>>>>>>>> extending the Web-browser through native-mode platform-specific code.
>>>>>>>>>> Although W3C officials do not even acknowledge the mere existence(!) of such
>>>>>>>>>> work, the progress on native extensions schemes has actually been pretty
>>>>>>>>>> good:
>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>> is approach to decentralization is BTW not (anymore) a research project, it
>>>>>>>>>> is fully testable in close to production-like settings today:
>>>>>>>>>> The native extensions also support a
>>>>>>>>>> _decentralized_development_model_for_Web_technology_, something which is
>>>>>>>>>> clearly missing in world where a single browser vendor has 80% of the mobile
>>>>>>>>>> browser market! Anders
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Kingsley Idehen 
>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>> OpenLink Software   (Home Page:
>>>> Medium Blog:
>>>> Blogspot Blog:
>>>> Twitter Profile:
>>>> Google+ Profile:
>>>> LinkedIn Profile:
>>>> Personal WebID:

Received on Friday, 19 August 2016 11:36:23 UTC