Re: Federation protocols

+1


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Simon Tennant <simon@buddycloud.com> wrote:

> So it seems like the gist of feeling here is that we must create one open
> standard and then crush Facebook. I'll stand to the side of that vibe
> except to add that this will not happen. This is not a case of
>
> 1. create open standard
> 2. developers implement it/users leave facebook for an open standard
> 3. ???
> 4 profit!?!
>
> Not going to happen. Facebook is offering huge value to users already on
> their platform. We're the rounding error in terms of people that care about
> privacy, federation and distributed network design. There are very few
> success stories of open replacements replacing the closed incumbent by
> matching them feature for feature.
>
> Simply reinventing the posts, followers, wall model and writing up a
> protocol will not work.
>
> Instead, think about the tools and services and protocols that solve a
> real developer problem. We solve this by:
>
> 1. Why are developers going to the Facebook SDK pages to build their
> social products?
> 2. and what we can be doing to a) understand their needs b) offer an open,
> hopefully federated, alternative that solves their needs quicker, easier
> and in a more open way.
> 3. ???
> 4. (a higher chance of success).
>
> This could be things like federated media sharing or quick ways to add a
> social layer to their mobile app or game.
>
> Anyway, my point is that this idea that a one-size-fits-all protocol just
> doesn't work. We've tried it. Federating a bunch of social networks that
> aren't solving a real user need (beyond privacy) is an exercise in protocol
> masturbation rather than solving real problems and therefore have a chance
> of being adopted.
>
> I wish the world was otherwise. It's not and usually I find it easier to
> change my approach than try to make the entire world change for me.
>
> S.
>
>
> On 31 May 2013 15:39, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31 May 2013 11:50, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> Dnia piątek, 31 maja 2013 o 06:59:52 Melvin Carvalho napisał(a):
>>> > On 30 May 2013 20:26, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl> wrote:
>>> > > Hi there,
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm #NewHere, to use a popular cliche on federated social networks.
>>> I am
>>> > > an active user of Diaspora, Friendica and StatusNet (soon to be
>>> > > converted to pump.io).
>>> > >
>>> > > I am also a stern proponent of free and open federation protocols and
>>> > > networks.
>>> > >
>>> > > For a while now I have seen Friendica as a great project, allowing
>>> the
>>> > > different federated social networks (Diaspora and
>>> OStatus-compatible) to
>>> > > be able to communicate and for a single, huge federated network.
>>> > >
>>> > > I am however baffled by the different approaches and protocols being
>>> used
>>> > > in
>>> > > distributed social network projects. With the introduction of Red,
>>> > > pump.io ,
>>> > > tent.io and other projects not exactly compatible with protocols
>>> already
>>> > > utilised, I feel we are not heading in the right direction.
>>> > >
>>> > > What I feel we need is a single, extensible, well-defined protocol,
>>> or
>>> > > suite
>>> > > of protocols, that we can build a single, compatible, interoperable
>>> > > federated
>>> > > social network upon.
>>> > >
>>> > > Right now we have OStatus, Diaspora's protocol, DFRN (used by
>>> Friendica)
>>> > > and
>>> > > the protocols that are used by Red, tent.io and pump.io, that I am
>>> not
>>> > > even
>>> > > sure are properly defined anywhere.
>>> > >
>>> > > If we do not get together and devise a single, workable protocol for
>>> all
>>> > > such
>>> > > services to use, the Network Effect will always work against us,
>>> instead
>>> > > of working for us:
>>> > > http://rys.io/en/88
>>> > >
>>> > > So my questions are:
>>> > >  - is this the right list to start this discussion?
>>> > >  - is there any work done in this regard?
>>> > >  - if some, where are we on that road?
>>> >
>>> > The web was designed to be social from day 1.  There are standards for
>>> this
>>> > kind of thing, but they are highly underused, with perhaps, the
>>> exception
>>> > of facebook.
>>>
>>> Are you talking about how Facebook uses XMPP? Otherwise, I don't see the
>>> "open
>>> social interoperable standard" in Facebook (although, granted, I'm not a
>>> user
>>> there).
>>>
>>
>> There are many things about facebook that are not ideal, such as privacy
>> issues and centralization, but it is a market leader and some of the
>> technology is worth examining, imho
>>
>> There is the xmpp, but I'm more referring to how facebook uses web
>> standards to federate.  Facebook federation is found on over 10% of all
>> websites, so they must be doing something scalable.  The techniques are to
>> leverage HTTP via the open graph protocol
>>
>> http://ogp.me/
>>
>> Notice that this is a protocol anyone can use, that is independent of
>> facebook centralization.  It's also one of the few that follows web
>> standards quite well.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > There is a tendency to want to create, rather than, reuse.  However
>>> the new
>>> > 'protocols' tend to scale at most to themselves, and it's relatively
>>> rare
>>> > that heterogeneous systems can communicate.
>>>
>>> That is true, but that is *precisely* why we have working groups like
>>> this
>>> one! Think HTML, XMPP, SMTP. Somehow it was possible to get these
>>> defined,
>>> documented and rolled out across the web.
>>>
>>
>> +1 im not against other protocols, but getting a good solution to html +
>> http into wider deployment alone will be a big win, for the web
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > This group made a big bet on OStatus about 2-3 years ago, and arguably
>>> it
>>> > has not exceeded expectations.
>>>
>>> True, but:
>>>  - it gained some traction;
>>>  - it has important flaws (privacy-wise) that have been opointed out.
>>>
>>
>> I think OStatus was a reasonable thing to bet on, and agree it had some
>> traction.  However we've learnt some lessons in the last few years, and
>> linked data has been steadily rising.  Consider the following chart:
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=ostatus#q=ostatus%2C%20%22linked%20data%22&cmpt=q
>>
>> Some of the founders of OStatus projects have moved on to other things,
>> and I think it's time to give linked data a chance.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Let's fix it. Let's choose a protocol that does not have these flaws and
>>> put
>>> our weight behind it.
>>>
>>
>> I think James Snell has made a fantasitc update to activity streams
>> (codename activity streams 2.0) which OStatus is based on, to include solid
>> linked data principles:
>>
>> http://www.chmod777self.com/2013/05/time-for-updated-activity-streams
>> .html
>>
>> There's even talk of this going through the IETF, which I expect would
>> not take long
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > There seems to be an effort to steer things back to standards and best
>>> > practices, from a high level perspective.  I'm optimistic that this new
>>> > approach will lead to interop, for those that get on board ...
>>>
>>> I do hope so. Otherwise we have no chance to get people out of walled
>>> gardens.
>>>
>>
>> +1 :)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pozdrawiam
>>> Michał "rysiek" Woźniak
>>>
>>> Fundacja Wolnego i Otwartego Oprogramowania
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Simon Tennant | buddycloud.com | +49 17 8545 0880 | office hours:
> goo.gl/tQgxP
>