4 ms·

I dunno for the other cases, but Facebook could be forced to have an standard protocol, an imposition justified because data and connections (friends) belong to

by lucio 9y ago

I dunno for the other cases, but Facebook could be forced to have an standard protocol, an imposition justified because data and connections (friends) belong to the user not the company. Something like how a phone number is portable between mobile cos. With a standard protocol/API a Facebook user could move to another social network provider without losing the data or the connections.

icebraining 9y ago
Who would define and evolve this standard protocol? What happens when FB wants to implement a feature that the protocol doesn't support?
- lucio 9y ago
  We have had the same problems with HTML and browsers, and you can apply the same solutions.
  - danarmak 9y ago
    The solutions for browsers didn't involve government regulation. "Applying the same solution" here means "doing nothing and hoping for things to get better".
    - lucio 9y ago
      Govmnt just imposes the existence of a common protocol for social networks. The justification is to ensure a free market and competition in the social network service. The protocol itself can be designed as other market standard protocols are defined, no gvmt intervention required there. It also applies to basic messaging. Question: It's bad or good that you can send text msgs between different carriers and phone brands?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I think you have the cause and effect inversed. The standardization of HTML was a cause of the reduction of power by the monopolist, not an effect. Microsoft only started playing ball when their marketshare had been dropping for a while. If you force Facebook into a standards group, they'll delay as much as they can (question the legitimacy of certain members, criticize the methodology, etc), and then they'll veto anything except a protocol that is both hard to implement for small players but also very limited, and then they'll have plausibly deniable "bugs" in the implementation.

by lucio 9y ago

icebraining 9y ago

Who would define and evolve this standard protocol? What happens when FB wants to implement a feature that the protocol doesn't support?

lucio 9y ago
We have had the same problems with HTML and browsers, and you can apply the same solutions.
- danarmak 9y ago
  The solutions for browsers didn't involve government regulation. "Applying the same solution" here means "doing nothing and hoping for things to get better".
  - lucio 9y ago
    Govmnt just imposes the existence of a common protocol for social networks. The justification is to ensure a free market and competition in the social network service. The protocol itself can be designed as other market standard protocols are defined, no gvmt intervention required there. It also applies to basic messaging. Question: It's bad or good that you can send text msgs between different carriers and phone brands?
- icebraining 9y ago
  I think you have the cause and effect inversed. The standardization of HTML was a cause of the reduction of power by the monopolist, not an effect. Microsoft only started playing ball when their marketshare had been dropping for a while. If you force Facebook into a standards group, they'll delay as much as they can (question the legitimacy of certain members, criticize the methodology, etc), and then they'll veto anything except a protocol that is both hard to implement for small players but also very limited, and then they'll have plausibly deniable "bugs" in the implementation.