4 ms·

> Did you try reaching out to each of those major social networking websites to offer collaboration on this standard? What possible benefit would it give compa

> Did you try reaching out to each of those major social networking websites to offer collaboration on this standard? What possible benefit would it give companies whose entire business value revolves around their data...to just give that data away to anyone? Here's what I learned from working on the DIASPORA* project: The only people that federated/distributed social networking benefits are the 1% of nerds who know how to use it. Everyone else is hopelessly, and willingly, attached at the hip to their social network of choice. Most of the issues or feature requests fell into the following two categories: 1.) I need $FEATURE otherwise I can't use DIASPORA* at all. 2.) Why doesn't $FEATURE in DIASPORA* work like /Facebook|Twitter|Google/? If we made it work exactly like that, regardless of the fact that it makes no sense on a distributed network, we'd be able to actually compete with a $100bil social network! Wow! Both of these are pipe dreams. With #1, the person is convincing themselves that they want to use D*, but in reality they just want Facebook without Facebook actually owning their data. #2 is the notion that a company like Facebook or Google, who both simultaneously and independently got rid of the last remaining "interoperable standard" in their business: XMPP. Yes, XMPP...once the golden boy of federated discussion platforms...has been totally deprecated by the top two implementors. Why? Because building their own, centralized IM service is not only more lucrative, it's also a lot easier and less expensive. The fact that anyone actually sat down and took the time to build specs for federated social networking is a miracle to me...considering there's practically zero business value in it.

BugsJustFindMe 9y ago
> but in reality they just want Facebook without Facebook actually owning their data Truer words-. Thank you both for working on diaspora* and also for your subsequent realization that completely-unnecessary-decentralization-just-for-its-own-sake is not actually what 99.9% of people want. They just want to be in control of their data.
- dnel 9y ago
  Decentralisation provides no benefits to users, only burdens. Federation is there to provide scalability and resilience to admins and designers of the network. The ultimate federated social network is the one that does not need to mention it at all to users because it has zero impact on how they use it.
smarx007 9y ago
> What possible benefit would it give companies whose entire business value revolves around their data. You are right, but inviting them is still worth doing. BTW, diaspora* should have also been invited, but as I understand, they were. > federated/distributed social networking benefits are the 1% of nerds I actually tried to understand how can I benefit from a distributed social network and did not (I almost stopped using FB as well, not for the privacy reasons, but because of little utility given the time it consumes). > Yes, XMPP...once the golden boy of federated discussion platforms...has been totally deprecated by the top two implementors. Why? For Google it was primarily because Microsoft used their XMPP integration in Outlook but refused to allow Google to have a similar Skype integration. Somewhere on HN Googlers were writing about this. Don't remember, but I think FB also integrated Google Talk as well without allowing reciprocal integration for Google. > The fact that anyone actually sat down and took the time to build specs for federated social networking is a miracle to me...considering there's practically zero business value in it. Again, I agree, but there is zero value in a good spec that is followed by a single product. At least diaspora* and GNU Social should agree on this standard so that we can in future use different federated social network distros.

BugsJustFindMe 9y ago

> but in reality they just want Facebook without Facebook actually owning their data Truer words-. Thank you both for working on diaspora* and also for your subsequent realization that completely-unnecessary-decentralization-just-for-its-own-sake is not actually what 99.9% of people want. They just want to be in control of their data.

dnel 9y ago
Decentralisation provides no benefits to users, only burdens. Federation is there to provide scalability and resilience to admins and designers of the network. The ultimate federated social network is the one that does not need to mention it at all to users because it has zero impact on how they use it.

smarx007 9y ago

> What possible benefit would it give companies whose entire business value revolves around their data. You are right, but inviting them is still worth doing. BTW, diaspora* should have also been invited, but as I understand, they were. > federated/distributed social networking benefits are the 1% of nerds I actually tried to understand how can I benefit from a distributed social network and did not (I almost stopped using FB as well, not for the privacy reasons, but because of little utility given the time it consumes). > Yes, XMPP...once the golden boy of federated discussion platforms...has been totally deprecated by the top two implementors. Why? For Google it was primarily because Microsoft used their XMPP integration in Outlook but refused to allow Google to have a similar Skype integration. Somewhere on HN Googlers were writing about this. Don't remember, but I think FB also integrated Google Talk as well without allowing reciprocal integration for Google. > The fact that anyone actually sat down and took the time to build specs for federated social networking is a miracle to me...considering there's practically zero business value in it. Again, I agree, but there is zero value in a good spec that is followed by a single product. At least diaspora* and GNU Social should agree on this standard so that we can in future use different federated social network distros.