W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fedsocweb@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Federation protocols

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 16:54:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKcGcrY3mOBq4cM5+O8mzmhZFMZ0qFRiksY60RbmiS0xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Tennant <simon@buddycloud.com>
Cc: "public-fedsocweb@w3.org" <public-fedsocweb@w3.org>
On 31 May 2013 16:40, Simon Tennant <simon@buddycloud.com> wrote:

> 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?
>

Scaling to protocols other than yourself is necessary for true federation.
I think activity streams 2.0 has great potential in this regard.


>
>  > 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?
>

Let's not forget that myspace was an extremely successful system.  Facebook
improved things by gaining penetration among groups of friends, sometimes
by dubious methods such as the so-called 'password antipattern'.  But they
leveraged the network effect better partly because people were forced to
identify with their real names, and hence, perhaps were more vested.  It
should be noted that BOTH systems were driven by HTTP Profile URIs, yet
also allowed email addressed to be input into the web forms.


>
> S.
> --
> Simon Tennant | buddycloud.com | +49 17 8545 0880 | office hours:
> goo.gl/tQgxP
>
Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 14:54:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:15:19 UTC