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

IMHO, sound about as 'solid' as AOL or MySpace.

I still think we haven't solved the identity problem yet; but i am happy to
see at least some people working on these more modern views of how our web
might work into the future.

Yet, i think perhaps a frustration registry or something might be useful /
good...

I'm sure we've all seen votes and/or ways in which issues have been
managed, that have left 'frustrations'...

a registry of them, might be meaningfully reasonable.

Companies are a little like A.I. in terms of being a form of 'robot' that
gets programmed, does stuff, might have code that was designed for one task
and was improperly applied in an attempt to fix or analyse another task;
but therein,

these systems engage thousands of humans as internal agents; and millions
as external agents.

to say that the views expressed by one agent who has a particular
identifier (whether it be an employment contract, or a mailto:URI) does not
mean the same thing as the views of the whole artificial organism; nor does
it necessarily reflect the views of a 'natural legal entity' should that be
decoupled from other references; constructed in some particular manner;
given the tooling available at the time, through the efforts of
technologists to produce them (and/or narrow scope to ensure some progress,
at a minimum, is made).

fingers crossed.

Maybe A.I. will fix it.  Some say it'll be super-intelligent really quickly
- perhaps it won't care so much about what their employers might think...

tim.h.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 at 21:35 Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
wrote:

> 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
> <adrian@hopebailie.com> 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 <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> > 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 <adrian@hopebailie.com>
> >> 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 <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> >>> 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 <melvincarvalho@gmail.com
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 15 August 2016 at 14:08, Timothy Holborn <
> 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> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 15 August 2016 at 11:50, Adrian Hope-Bailie
> >>>>>>> <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> 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 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> 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
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Kingsley Idehen
> >>>> Founder & CEO
> >>>> OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)
> >>>>
> >>>> Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
> >>>> Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
> >>>> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> >>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> >>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> >>>> Personal WebID:
> http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>