4 ms·

Facebook could die a slow death when the world figures out how to create an open, federated version of Facebook. Instead of placing central control of our soci

Facebook could die a slow death when the world figures out how to create an open, federated version of Facebook. Instead of placing central control of our social graph with an organization that believes people are essentially targets on the great Advertising Dartboard of the future, you could distribute control of that graph. Instead of logging into Facebook to connect to your friends, you'd simply have your "profile"--your web page or other net identity--and things like status updates, tweets (because this is also how you "kill" Twitter), likes, groups, friends, etc., would be handled by the protocol. In short: you kill Facebook by building an open protocol that does the same thing.

dotBen 16y ago
"Facebook could die a slow death when the world figures out how to create an open, federated version of Facebook." So my whole career in this industry is helping companies 'get open' and embrace 'open'... and I can tell you this is not what will kill Facebook. Being 'open' isn't a feature consumers directly care about. The teenager on the street corner, the mom in the grocery store, the middle-aged office worker... they are not going to use Service X over Facebook "because it is open". That means nothing to them. There's nothing in there which explains to a normal person why there is any problem in making their tweets, likes, groups, etc on Facebook. Further more, disparate services which rely on users having their own control of their node (Dispora, DiSo) make no sense when 99% of most normal people have no web hosting or other way of hosting such a node. If there's one thing we've learnt from recent Facebook debacles, it is that people appreciate a level of privacy and control around their profile data. Now, open doesn't equate to no privacy - but you have to expect and assume that all nodes will treat privacy the same, otherwise the system fails. With a closed system you simply have to trust one actor with your privacy - the host network. Finally, the 'dartboard of advertising' is what gives companies like Facebook the resource to outcompete their rivals. If an alternative service doesn't have that kind of advertising strategy then it's going to find it hard to compete with the might of FB. Open may form part of the ultimate successor to Facebook, but it is just as likely to be something totally closed as Facebook. Open/closed is [sadly] not what consumers care about.
- codingthewheel 16y ago
  Well actually I agree. Well-stated. Open may form part of the ultimate successor to FB. It's 100% true the average Facebook user doesn't know, and doesn't care, about "open". But what being open wins you is support of the community, and in particular, "developers, developers, developers". Take the (by no means parallel, but similar) case of iPhone vs. Android. The typical user could care less about whether iPhone is "open" or not, provided their apps work and their calls don't drop (heh). Still, Android makes a compelling case to developers and to handset manufacturers. Android gets huge points for being "open", and over time, I think that creates a head-leads, body-follows scenario where early adopters, tech evangelists, and people who surf sites like HN move to the new platform (whatever it is) en masse. Some time later, "normal" users then gravitate to that platform because the thought leaders have gone there, that's where the hype is, etc. To put it another way: being open doesn't necessarily win you normal, everyday users. But it can win you the power users, the early adopters, and the thought leaders; and where they go, "normal" users tend to follow in time. As for the "how do users host their own node" issue, I agree. This will never happen if people have to (my God, the horror) sign up for a web hosting account to have a Facebook page. But in an Internet where "websites" are torn off from the cloud at will, and where creating a "website" or "web identity" is as easy as pressing a button -- easier, in fact, than it is to create a Facebook page currently -- I think that's when you'll start to see user-controlled nodes become a real possibility for the mass market. Not before.
  - dotBen 16y ago
    "But what being open wins you is support of the community, and in particular, "developers, developers, developers"." I think the Android argument can play out the other way, and I say that as someone who is onto his 3rd Android phone, never owned an iPhone yet was an Objective C programmer in a former life and total mac-head. Android may be open, and Apple App Store has it's problems but monetization opportunities are much bigger on iOS platform because everything is geared towards paying for apps. No one I know pays for apps on Android. Plus, app dev for iPhone is cheaper because it's (sort of) one platform rather than Android's disparate handsets due to it's very openness. Another case in point: Facebook FBML Platform vs Open Social. Developers way preferred the close Facebook Platform over the open standard Open Social (again, I was part of that so I say it with some disappointment).
skbohra 16y ago
I highly doubt that facebook can be killed by building any open protocols, there are already protocols like foaf+ssl that could be used to build an open social networking, but that doesnt make it facebook killer. People use facebook because there are lots of other people using it and they don't care about openness as much as a geek do. Facebook would be killed only by time something even cool looking appear. And why do we want to kill facebook, anyway.

dotBen 16y ago

"Facebook could die a slow death when the world figures out how to create an open, federated version of Facebook." So my whole career in this industry is helping companies 'get open' and embrace 'open'... and I can tell you this is not what will kill Facebook. Being 'open' isn't a feature consumers directly care about. The teenager on the street corner, the mom in the grocery store, the middle-aged office worker... they are not going to use Service X over Facebook "because it is open". That means nothing to them. There's nothing in there which explains to a normal person why there is any problem in making their tweets, likes, groups, etc on Facebook. Further more, disparate services which rely on users having their own control of their node (Dispora, DiSo) make no sense when 99% of most normal people have no web hosting or other way of hosting such a node. If there's one thing we've learnt from recent Facebook debacles, it is that people appreciate a level of privacy and control around their profile data. Now, open doesn't equate to no privacy - but you have to expect and assume that all nodes will treat privacy the same, otherwise the system fails. With a closed system you simply have to trust one actor with your privacy - the host network. Finally, the 'dartboard of advertising' is what gives companies like Facebook the resource to outcompete their rivals. If an alternative service doesn't have that kind of advertising strategy then it's going to find it hard to compete with the might of FB. Open may form part of the ultimate successor to Facebook, but it is just as likely to be something totally closed as Facebook. Open/closed is [sadly] not what consumers care about.

codingthewheel 16y ago
Well actually I agree. Well-stated. Open may form part of the ultimate successor to FB. It's 100% true the average Facebook user doesn't know, and doesn't care, about "open". But what being open wins you is support of the community, and in particular, "developers, developers, developers". Take the (by no means parallel, but similar) case of iPhone vs. Android. The typical user could care less about whether iPhone is "open" or not, provided their apps work and their calls don't drop (heh). Still, Android makes a compelling case to developers and to handset manufacturers. Android gets huge points for being "open", and over time, I think that creates a head-leads, body-follows scenario where early adopters, tech evangelists, and people who surf sites like HN move to the new platform (whatever it is) en masse. Some time later, "normal" users then gravitate to that platform because the thought leaders have gone there, that's where the hype is, etc. To put it another way: being open doesn't necessarily win you normal, everyday users. But it can win you the power users, the early adopters, and the thought leaders; and where they go, "normal" users tend to follow in time. As for the "how do users host their own node" issue, I agree. This will never happen if people have to (my God, the horror) sign up for a web hosting account to have a Facebook page. But in an Internet where "websites" are torn off from the cloud at will, and where creating a "website" or "web identity" is as easy as pressing a button -- easier, in fact, than it is to create a Facebook page currently -- I think that's when you'll start to see user-controlled nodes become a real possibility for the mass market. Not before.
- dotBen 16y ago
  "But what being open wins you is support of the community, and in particular, "developers, developers, developers"." I think the Android argument can play out the other way, and I say that as someone who is onto his 3rd Android phone, never owned an iPhone yet was an Objective C programmer in a former life and total mac-head. Android may be open, and Apple App Store has it's problems but monetization opportunities are much bigger on iOS platform because everything is geared towards paying for apps. No one I know pays for apps on Android. Plus, app dev for iPhone is cheaper because it's (sort of) one platform rather than Android's disparate handsets due to it's very openness. Another case in point: Facebook FBML Platform vs Open Social. Developers way preferred the close Facebook Platform over the open standard Open Social (again, I was part of that so I say it with some disappointment).

skbohra 16y ago

I highly doubt that facebook can be killed by building any open protocols, there are already protocols like foaf+ssl that could be used to build an open social networking, but that doesnt make it facebook killer. People use facebook because there are lots of other people using it and they don't care about openness as much as a geek do. Facebook would be killed only by time something even cool looking appear. And why do we want to kill facebook, anyway.