W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > August 2016

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

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:49:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3Ofnoxi21VazLfniFyWdvK-9pHwrKFni5LVzGy3q3Sgg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 at 23:30 Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Business models and architectures certainly are hurdles but the (IMO) #1
> reason
> to why centralized services succeed and decentralized (usually) do not is
> that the
> latter require agreements by gazillions of partners with different agendas
> which as shown by for example the middle-east conflict simply doesn't work.
>
IMHO: creative commons is a great example of how, as you refer to it, a
'gazillions of partners' can be coordinated.

similarly; yet different, is github, or indeed also - W3C...

IMHO we need a new type of license agreement that enables service-providers
whilst offering a 'human rights' considerate - licensing alternative.

the data stored on these underlying storage-services is not owned by the
service-provider, but rather, the human who holds the account or humans who
maintain an account via a trust-mechanism (ie: groups) which in-turn can be
described in RDF.

another problem therein becomes enforcement; yet, we have been taught by
governments how to do this.

The TransPacific Partnership agreements, as an example, illustrate the
power of international contract law - and lets face it, if a legal firm
believes money is available for successfully winning a case - they'll often
fund the case to get a bigger slice of that settlement...

so, amongst the issues that exist IMHO; is one of how licensing / contract
law, may be applied to achieve a 'human rights' compliant design outcome.

of course; this is not the only type of licensing arrangement i envisage
may apply to these future services; but i would consider alternatives less
'human centric'...


> Even for partners with "similar" agendas like banks, the idea of creating
> a bank-to-bank payment protocol is probably never going to happen.  Well,
> there are som enthusiasts who believe in the PSD2 regulation but the forces
> behind PSD2 didn't design an API to go with that, so at least seen from my
> watchtower their cute but toothless project will be completely overridden
> by
> Apple, Google, PayPal etc. who all offer a working solution including
> security.
>
> that's more of an argument about various 'institutional web' variants; of
which many exist.  It's it called more broadly - Web 2.0 >?

Tim.H.

Anders
>
> On 2016-08-16 15:10, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> > The shift has an array of impacts.  One of the simple yet complex
> opportunities is for start-ups / app-developers.  The remarkable difference
> of not hosting user-data both enables highly granular access and utility of
> data people would ordinarily not provide, whilst simultaneously lowering
> the scaling cost due to the website provider not needing to
> store/distribute user-data...
> >
> > If we need to go through the business models, perhaps a business group
> CG could be established to consider the far broader implications beyond
> this singular and relatively simple business case example.
> >
> > What do you think happened to the YouTube founders when they're little
> box, perhaps running in their bedroom, suddenly got a million users.
> Whilst that may not be the specific example - i've seen others in the
> paper...  Often they need to find alot of resources, or the site gets
> shut-down due to lack of resources.
> >
> > that's not really pushing humanity forward in a way that supports our
> innovators...
> >
> > the other is of course 'choice of law'.
> >
> > floppy disks vs. the programs we installed on our pre-pentium systems -
> well...
> >
> > It was kinda clear - people kept the floppy in their pockets,
> briefcases, etc.   The documents were not locked into the app.
> >
> > anyhow.  i can go on forever.  If a perception exists that there is no
> economic merit in SoLiD (or LDP related) platform alternatives; then i
> think establishing a Business CG[1] is something i'd put alot of time into,
> as a means to establish a market-based solution to something that i fear
> may become centralised in a manner that we don't like - because we didn't
> figure out how to cooperate more effectively towards a better future [2].
> >
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/community/about/#bg
> > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8EOQNYC-8
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 at 22:51 Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com
> <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     What is the business case for a service provider to adopt Solid?
> >
> >     Why would Google, Facebook or anyone that build's their business on
> user data choose to let users take that away?
> >
> >     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?
> >
> >     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.
> >
> >     On 15 August 2016 at 14:11, Melvin Carvalho <
> melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >         On 15 August 2016 at 14:08, Timothy Holborn <
> timothy.holborn@gmail.com <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>> 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 <
> melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >                 On 15 August 2016 at 11:50, Adrian Hope-Bailie <
> adrian@hopebailie.com <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> 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 <
> timothy.holborn@gmail.com <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>> 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 github.com/Linkeddata <
> http://github.com/Linkeddata> 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]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2016Aug/0045.html
> >                         [2] https://youtu.be/TRpjhIhpuiU?t=16m26s
> >                         [3] http://blog.softlayer.com/tag/watson
> >                         [4] http://webscience.org/
> >                         [5]
> https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704
> >                         [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8EOQNYC-8
> >                         [7]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_on_Artificial_Intelligence
> >                         [8] (perhaps not the best reference, but has a
> bunch of ideas in it:
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RzczQPfygLuowu-WPvaYyKQB0PsSF2COKldj1mjktTs/edit?usp=sharing
> >                         [9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTqF3w2yrZI
> >                         [10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x_VpAjim6g
> >                         [11] http://www.mico-project.eu/technology/
> >                         [12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CMxDNuuAiQ
> >                         [13]
> http://www.wired.com/2013/05/vint-cerf-interplanetary-internet/
> >                         [14] https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs/issues/36
> >
> >                         On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 at 14:47 Anders Rundgren <
> anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>>
> 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
> ...
> >                             >
> >                             >
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-web/
> >
> >                             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:
> >
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2016Aug/0005.html
> >
> >                             This is approach to decentralization is BTW
> not (anymore) a research project, it is fully testable in close to
> production-like settings today:
> >                             https://test.webpki.org/webpay-merchant
> >
> >                             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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2016 13:49:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 August 2016 13:49:45 UTC