Re: Federation protocols

On 31 May 2013 16:28, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl> wrote:

>
> Twitter changed their API rules lately, drawing ire from developers and
> killing off a lot of small companies by this simple move. There is huge
> value
> in decentralised, federated, standards-compliant services. It's not *only*
> privacy.
>

Agree this is a bad move, but do users care that they changed their API?


> And don't forget the public/administration sphere. There are valid
> arguments
> to be made against public administration using proprietary, walled social
> networks, but this argument falls flat, because there is no viable
> alternative.
>

Agree 100% - companies like their private data kept private. Can you be
more specific about



>
> > This could be things like federated media sharing or quick ways to add a
> > social layer to their mobile app or game.
>
> Great. Let's promote a single, well-defined protocol and this will be
> possible.
>

Where do existing protocols like pump and buddycloud fail? What would the
single unified protocol do differently?

> 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.
>
> Well, the same was said about MySpace several years ago. And before that,
> Geocities. Remember those? Users flock and change services from time to
> time.
> The time users move off of Facebook is drawing near and we really *should*
> have something to offer.
>

What do you think the reasons for Facebook's success were? Why did users
leave Myspace for Facebook?

S.
-- 
Simon Tennant | buddycloud.com | +49 17 8545 0880 | office hours:
goo.gl/tQgxP