4 ms·

Tim Berners-Lee envisions a better web

77 points by bootload 9y ago

shakna 9y ago
Looking at the spec for Solid [0], I'm quite struggling to see what it has over GNUSocial or the other players in this same field, apart from the name backing it. Authentication, transfer of data, and all that look very similar. [0] https://github.com/solid/solid-spec https://github.com/solid/solid-spec
- mattl 9y ago
  at one point I really tried to get GNU social as GNU/W3C social or GNU/MIT social. I think another group looking at the problem could have advanced things a lot by now.
  - shakna 9y ago
    Try mastadon's [0] implementation. It's a very nice, rich interface around GNUSocial, and feels like it goes a lot further, even if it does just rely on the spec. [0] http://mastodon.social/ http://mastodon.social/
austincheney 9y ago
This looks nice, like an evolution of FOAF. It has the proper focus on many of the key ingredients it will need to be successful: access control, identity, and the correct goals. Unfortunately, this probably won't work any better than similar solutions. It is missing something more important, a smart distribution mechanism. The web is not the answer. So long as they continue to think in terms of data and delivery the best they can hope for is Facebook plus privacy. They can do better than this.
aub3bhat 9y ago
The reason these linked data, semantic web, GNU social projects end up going no where is because they put principles ahead of product. People want things they can click/tap/share and use without having to go through a manual/spec. And when the time arises to build those products one quickly discovers that the lofty principles don't match the user expectation. Something like Snapchat that provides a very very weak guarantee of privacy but has your classmates is immensely more useful to society than a decentralized federated social network with PGP signed identities filled with crypto enthusiasts.
- rl3 9y ago
  Mainstream users could use such things so long as the UX was really, really good. The problem is not the principled nature of decentralized networks, but that they have to overcome the same hurdles as centralized networks—how do you compete with Facebook when they're so entrenched?
  - exDM69 9y ago
    > Mainstream users could use such things so long as the UX was really, really good. I'm not so sure. In my experience with encrypted chat apps with non-technical people, they completely ignore any kind of security in the key exchange. They'll give you their account number to get in touch but nothing to verify the key. I don't see this changing in the near future or at all if fundamentals of public key systems aren't going to be a part of school curricula. I'm a bit sad that it's so poorly understood as public key cryptography has really changed the world in the past few decades (can you imagine going back to a world without online banking?). The key insight to understand is that cryptography can't establish trust, only maintain it.
    - rl3 9y ago
      Exceptional UX assumes adequate education as part of the experience, if not completely obviating the need for it in the first place by creating a foolproof system that holds the user's hand every step of the way.
    - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
      Those users see an extra layer of friction for no obvious benefit. "Trust" is not an issue for them, because they've never experienced someone impersonating someone else. The reason the web is broken is because it's a meeting point for the social, commercial, corporate, personal, academic, and political worlds. All of those worlds have different demands and requirements. You can't fix a political problem by applying technology to it. There's a persistent myth that you can, but the reality is that publicly accessible technology mirrors the publicly accessible political environment, not vice versa. Politically, neither ordinary users nor academic experts have the leverage to enforce the kind of secure, safe, trustworthy web most of us here would want. Banks, corporations, governments, and the letter agencies do, which is why they have an effective monopoly on the practical applications of key security. A minority of geeks and security specialists get some crumbs from the key exchange table, but they're a long way from being able to force strong security into the popular web.
syshum 9y ago
>>On the better web Berners-Lee envisions, users control I have a hard time taking him seriously at this point, he talks about User control while at the same time advocating for the Advancement of DRM in HTML5 standard I can not square these positions, DRM is anti-user. You can not be for User control while also supporting DRM. Pick one
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  Users want drm. You don't, I don't, most others here not, but in general, they just want their movie. And they will use other technology, if the web does not provide what they want. So for the html5 to stay relevant, it sadly has to contain it. Even though we can do without.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    Sometimes I think that those who complain about 'normal people' on the net have some kind of a point. Would we be here with this kind of dilemma about popularity if the net never took off for 'normal' people?
    - merpnderp 9y ago
      Isn't the net big enough for everyone? In fact people who don't use centralized networks benefit from the infrastructure invest from those who do.
  - pharrlax 9y ago
    "Want" is a tricky word here because you're conflating the micro and macro wants of people. On a micro level, surveys show most people are extremely anti-free speech. Individuals are broadly onboard with the extreme and and anti-constitutional suppression of speech that runs counter to their political / religious beliefs. And yet on a macro level, we tend to recognize in how we build our institutions that we strive toward a society that doesn't suppress speech. Same with DRM. Just because everyone might say "Uh, fine, just start playing Moana already" doesn't mean we collectively would prefer the macro results of ubiquitous DRM.
  - 9y ago
antingate2 9y ago
Basically low iq urbit.

77 points by bootload 9y ago

Looking at the spec for Solid [0], I'm quite struggling to see what it has over GNUSocial or the other players in this same field, apart from the name backing it. Authentication, transfer of data, and all that look very similar. [0] https://github.com/solid/solid-spec https://github.com/solid/solid-spec

mattl 9y ago
at one point I really tried to get GNU social as GNU/W3C social or GNU/MIT social. I think another group looking at the problem could have advanced things a lot by now.
- shakna 9y ago
  Try mastadon's [0] implementation. It's a very nice, rich interface around GNUSocial, and feels like it goes a lot further, even if it does just rely on the spec. [0] http://mastodon.social/ http://mastodon.social/

austincheney 9y ago

This looks nice, like an evolution of FOAF. It has the proper focus on many of the key ingredients it will need to be successful: access control, identity, and the correct goals. Unfortunately, this probably won't work any better than similar solutions. It is missing something more important, a smart distribution mechanism. The web is not the answer. So long as they continue to think in terms of data and delivery the best they can hope for is Facebook plus privacy. They can do better than this.

aub3bhat 9y ago

The reason these linked data, semantic web, GNU social projects end up going no where is because they put principles ahead of product. People want things they can click/tap/share and use without having to go through a manual/spec. And when the time arises to build those products one quickly discovers that the lofty principles don't match the user expectation. Something like Snapchat that provides a very very weak guarantee of privacy but has your classmates is immensely more useful to society than a decentralized federated social network with PGP signed identities filled with crypto enthusiasts.

rl3 9y ago
Mainstream users could use such things so long as the UX was really, really good. The problem is not the principled nature of decentralized networks, but that they have to overcome the same hurdles as centralized networks—how do you compete with Facebook when they're so entrenched?
- exDM69 9y ago
  > Mainstream users could use such things so long as the UX was really, really good. I'm not so sure. In my experience with encrypted chat apps with non-technical people, they completely ignore any kind of security in the key exchange. They'll give you their account number to get in touch but nothing to verify the key. I don't see this changing in the near future or at all if fundamentals of public key systems aren't going to be a part of school curricula. I'm a bit sad that it's so poorly understood as public key cryptography has really changed the world in the past few decades (can you imagine going back to a world without online banking?). The key insight to understand is that cryptography can't establish trust, only maintain it.
  - rl3 9y ago
    Exceptional UX assumes adequate education as part of the experience, if not completely obviating the need for it in the first place by creating a foolproof system that holds the user's hand every step of the way.
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    Those users see an extra layer of friction for no obvious benefit. "Trust" is not an issue for them, because they've never experienced someone impersonating someone else. The reason the web is broken is because it's a meeting point for the social, commercial, corporate, personal, academic, and political worlds. All of those worlds have different demands and requirements. You can't fix a political problem by applying technology to it. There's a persistent myth that you can, but the reality is that publicly accessible technology mirrors the publicly accessible political environment, not vice versa. Politically, neither ordinary users nor academic experts have the leverage to enforce the kind of secure, safe, trustworthy web most of us here would want. Banks, corporations, governments, and the letter agencies do, which is why they have an effective monopoly on the practical applications of key security. A minority of geeks and security specialists get some crumbs from the key exchange table, but they're a long way from being able to force strong security into the popular web.

syshum 9y ago

>>On the better web Berners-Lee envisions, users control I have a hard time taking him seriously at this point, he talks about User control while at the same time advocating for the Advancement of DRM in HTML5 standard I can not square these positions, DRM is anti-user. You can not be for User control while also supporting DRM. Pick one

hutzlibu 9y ago
Users want drm. You don't, I don't, most others here not, but in general, they just want their movie. And they will use other technology, if the web does not provide what they want. So for the html5 to stay relevant, it sadly has to contain it. Even though we can do without.
- ue_ 9y ago
  Sometimes I think that those who complain about 'normal people' on the net have some kind of a point. Would we be here with this kind of dilemma about popularity if the net never took off for 'normal' people?
  - merpnderp 9y ago
    Isn't the net big enough for everyone? In fact people who don't use centralized networks benefit from the infrastructure invest from those who do.
- pharrlax 9y ago
  "Want" is a tricky word here because you're conflating the micro and macro wants of people. On a micro level, surveys show most people are extremely anti-free speech. Individuals are broadly onboard with the extreme and and anti-constitutional suppression of speech that runs counter to their political / religious beliefs. And yet on a macro level, we tend to recognize in how we build our institutions that we strive toward a society that doesn't suppress speech. Same with DRM. Just because everyone might say "Uh, fine, just start playing Moana already" doesn't mean we collectively would prefer the macro results of ubiquitous DRM.
- 9y ago

antingate2 9y ago

Basically low iq urbit.