7 ms·

I don't think email is a good replacement for Facebook. Rather what we need is open (email protocol like) social networks. The problem with Facebook is that it

by aws_ls 11y ago

I don't think email is a good replacement for Facebook. Rather what we need is open (email protocol like) social networks. The problem with Facebook is that its a monopoly, and closed. What if it were open, such that I can send a friend request from G+ to Facebook. Just like I can easily send an email from yahoo email id to gmail. This openness, if incorporated, can solve the monopoly problem as well. Plus we don't have to complain of Facebook's AI/ML screwing/controlling our inbox feeds. All my (various social network) friends' statuses come to my hosted social network (G+/Facebook, or my home built) and my host controls the feed, with its own proprietary rules. Everybody will be happy. Even Facebook, as there is no more bashing of it. I guess Facebook can and should take the lead towards openness. It will be a brave move, if it happens. But they will earn a lot of respect.

cortesoft 11y ago
That is what diaspora tried to do. It has not gone well.
- aws_ls 11y ago
  That's why I think, it takes Facebook (the current monopoly) to do the right thing. If they open the other required things will automatically happen. G+ will become an attractive option once again, for people who like that interface. And HN types will implement their own 'social' protocol, and self host.
  - Synaesthesia 11y ago
    Fab ook are not gonna do the right thing. They're gonna try to maximize their profits.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - narrowrail 11y ago
    While I sympathize with the gist of your sentiments: What's in it for FB? Nobody (outside of an HN-type crowd) wants to self-host anything, nor do they know what that means. The 30 yr old+ folks without any technical knowledge think FB is great and see no reason anything should change. You are basically calling for FB to reduce their monopoly to satisfy 0.01% of their addressable market. I believe the force that will reduce the significance of FB will come from outside of FB (and there is no shortage of people trying and failing to do that).
    - pjbrunet 11y ago
      I wouldn't assume 30+ folks don't care. We have been online since the 90s (at least) and we've seen some bad shit in our lifetime. An interesting survey would be: Are you "creeped out" by Facebook? Try that survey on Facebook (if it doesn't get blocked) and see how that goes ;-)
      - axanoeychron 11y ago
        People might not always agree with you dude and that is okay. Overuse of the wink smiley is patronising.
        pjbrunet 11y ago
        What's your point? And I've been using the wink smiley for 30 years. You're the first to say something about it.
- wfn 11y ago
  Hmm do you have any references to stories/explanations what did not go well - anything beyond critical mass (lack thereof) / network effects issues?
- catshirt 11y ago
  the issue of course, is that they conflated protocol with experience. when someone does this right- the technology will be indistinguishable from Facebook for the typical user.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  Diaspora was written by a bunch of college students who were unqualified to be implementing the security protocols necessary. Given that one of the biggest reasons people want to move off Facebook is security, that's a no-go. The fact that Diaspora failed at implementing this idea doesn't mean that the idea is bad.
  - jseliger 11y ago
    Given that one of the biggest reasons people want to move off Facebook is security, that's a no-go I'm not convinced that anyone apart from readers of Hacker News and Reddit wants to move off Facebook. Discussions about the problems of FB on HN remind me of 2000s-era Slashdot discussions of why Linux is better than Windows and is poised to takeover the desktop: A popular subject for a tiny, passionate minority that has little relevance relative to the huge number of everyday users out there. (BTW, I'm not a big FB user and am sympathetic to discussions of its problems, but I'm also aware that apart from a small number of nerds no one cares.)
    - detaro 11y ago
      I'd say it was a no-go because they used privacy and security as their main advertising/fund-raising argument, attracting especially the crowd caring about these things.
    - e12e 11y ago
      I have friends that either didn't join, or moved off facebook - people that are far from the typical hn demographic.
    - pjbrunet 11y ago
      "A popular subject for a tiny, passionate minority that has little relevance relative to the huge number of everyday users out there." Linux did take over Windows. You realize Android is Linux, right? That's 80% of the mobile market right here https://twitter.com/BIIntelligence/status/605748823709859840/photo/1 https://twitter.com/BIIntelligence/status/605748823709859840... And now Microsoft is building Android apps. So that tiny, passionate minority was right ;-)
- rakoo 11y ago
  No, diaspora started as a replacement for Facebook: instead of everybody being on Facebook, everybody would be on the same Diaspora node. Federation came much much later.
- simoncion 11y ago
  Diaspora did a few things wrong. Two of them were: * Their federation protocol was (still is?) very poorly documented. This made alternate implementations difficult. * A user cannot move his data from one Diaspora server to another. (This might have changed in the last six to twelve months, but I doubt it.) This sort of moots the benefit of decentralization; what good is it if I can pick from any one of a sea of hosts, but must stick with that host for the rest of forever, even if they turn evil?
amelius 11y ago
I think we need multiple protocols. One for ordinary messages (ok, we have email for that), one for statuses, one for tagging people, one for publishing events, one for indicating which events you are going to, etc.
- joe_the_user 11y ago
  The thing about multiplicity is that most people aren't glued to multiple applications. The ideal for someone not putting a lot of effort to computers themselves is to just have a single window where everything of interest comes through. A single application that melds together multiple protocols would nice. But then you're talking something that seems like Facebook to the end-user but has the delivery mode changed.
  - amelius 11y ago
    The important issue is that we might want different identities for every protocol. Right now, lots of people prefer to have different identities on youtube than on gmail.
    - zokier 11y ago
      Instead of segregating identities on services I think a better model would be just a good support for multiple identities (which then can span between services).
      - amelius 11y ago
        But you don't want one service being able to link all those identities together.
- popee 11y ago
  No, you just need to handle few additional smtp header fields ;-)

by aws_ls 11y ago

cortesoft 11y ago

That is what diaspora tried to do. It has not gone well.

aws_ls 11y ago
That's why I think, it takes Facebook (the current monopoly) to do the right thing. If they open the other required things will automatically happen. G+ will become an attractive option once again, for people who like that interface. And HN types will implement their own 'social' protocol, and self host.
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  Fab ook are not gonna do the right thing. They're gonna try to maximize their profits.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- narrowrail 11y ago
  While I sympathize with the gist of your sentiments: What's in it for FB? Nobody (outside of an HN-type crowd) wants to self-host anything, nor do they know what that means. The 30 yr old+ folks without any technical knowledge think FB is great and see no reason anything should change. You are basically calling for FB to reduce their monopoly to satisfy 0.01% of their addressable market. I believe the force that will reduce the significance of FB will come from outside of FB (and there is no shortage of people trying and failing to do that).
  - pjbrunet 11y ago
    I wouldn't assume 30+ folks don't care. We have been online since the 90s (at least) and we've seen some bad shit in our lifetime. An interesting survey would be: Are you "creeped out" by Facebook? Try that survey on Facebook (if it doesn't get blocked) and see how that goes ;-)
    - axanoeychron 11y ago
      People might not always agree with you dude and that is okay. Overuse of the wink smiley is patronising.
      - pjbrunet 11y ago
        What's your point? And I've been using the wink smiley for 30 years. You're the first to say something about it.
wfn 11y ago
Hmm do you have any references to stories/explanations what did not go well - anything beyond critical mass (lack thereof) / network effects issues?
catshirt 11y ago
the issue of course, is that they conflated protocol with experience. when someone does this right- the technology will be indistinguishable from Facebook for the typical user.
copsarebastards 11y ago
Diaspora was written by a bunch of college students who were unqualified to be implementing the security protocols necessary. Given that one of the biggest reasons people want to move off Facebook is security, that's a no-go. The fact that Diaspora failed at implementing this idea doesn't mean that the idea is bad.
- jseliger 11y ago
  Given that one of the biggest reasons people want to move off Facebook is security, that's a no-go I'm not convinced that anyone apart from readers of Hacker News and Reddit wants to move off Facebook. Discussions about the problems of FB on HN remind me of 2000s-era Slashdot discussions of why Linux is better than Windows and is poised to takeover the desktop: A popular subject for a tiny, passionate minority that has little relevance relative to the huge number of everyday users out there. (BTW, I'm not a big FB user and am sympathetic to discussions of its problems, but I'm also aware that apart from a small number of nerds no one cares.)
  - detaro 11y ago
    I'd say it was a no-go because they used privacy and security as their main advertising/fund-raising argument, attracting especially the crowd caring about these things.
  - e12e 11y ago
    I have friends that either didn't join, or moved off facebook - people that are far from the typical hn demographic.
  - pjbrunet 11y ago
    "A popular subject for a tiny, passionate minority that has little relevance relative to the huge number of everyday users out there." Linux did take over Windows. You realize Android is Linux, right? That's 80% of the mobile market right here https://twitter.com/BIIntelligence/status/605748823709859840/photo/1 https://twitter.com/BIIntelligence/status/605748823709859840... And now Microsoft is building Android apps. So that tiny, passionate minority was right ;-)
rakoo 11y ago
No, diaspora started as a replacement for Facebook: instead of everybody being on Facebook, everybody would be on the same Diaspora node. Federation came much much later.
simoncion 11y ago
Diaspora did a few things wrong. Two of them were: * Their federation protocol was (still is?) very poorly documented. This made alternate implementations difficult. * A user cannot move his data from one Diaspora server to another. (This might have changed in the last six to twelve months, but I doubt it.) This sort of moots the benefit of decentralization; what good is it if I can pick from any one of a sea of hosts, but must stick with that host for the rest of forever, even if they turn evil?

amelius 11y ago

I think we need multiple protocols. One for ordinary messages (ok, we have email for that), one for statuses, one for tagging people, one for publishing events, one for indicating which events you are going to, etc.

joe_the_user 11y ago
The thing about multiplicity is that most people aren't glued to multiple applications. The ideal for someone not putting a lot of effort to computers themselves is to just have a single window where everything of interest comes through. A single application that melds together multiple protocols would nice. But then you're talking something that seems like Facebook to the end-user but has the delivery mode changed.
- amelius 11y ago
  The important issue is that we might want different identities for every protocol. Right now, lots of people prefer to have different identities on youtube than on gmail.
  - zokier 11y ago
    Instead of segregating identities on services I think a better model would be just a good support for multiple identities (which then can span between services).
    - amelius 11y ago
      But you don't want one service being able to link all those identities together.
popee 11y ago
No, you just need to handle few additional smtp header fields ;-)