4 ms·

We need a new message protocol

by rc_mob 7y ago

Funes- 7y ago
So Google--or any other big corporation--can take it over as well? I don't think coming up with yet another open protocol is the solution.
tqkxzugoaupvwqr 7y ago
I fear this will lead to the same problem: If it’s interesting enough for Google, they will offer a free service, gobble up a large number of users, at which point they can hold the new protocol hostage, add their own extensions, and everyone else must follow.
- sneak 7y ago
  It’s called XMPP, and Google ran a public gateway federating for Google Talk. Basically nobody used it, and what little use it did see was mostly third parties sending spam to Google users over the gateway, so they shut it down. Centralized systems seem to give users what they want. This is why iMessage, FB Messenger, WhatsApp, Snapchat, and Instagram are huge, and email is dying (and XMPP failed to get any real traction in the first place).
Silhouette 7y ago
There's nothing wrong with the basic principle of email (other than its lack of built-in security, arguably). The problem is that certain large organisations now claim to offer an email service, but don't actually make it work properly. It might have been better for the rest of the community to block those services until they did work properly to force everyone to play by the same rules, but unfortunately we have reached a point where some of them are too big for that to be a practical solution. The obsession with fighting spam and malware means some mail services are now far too ready to accept false positives where they block legitimate mail, in order to reduce the risk of false negatives where they let illegitimate messages through. This seems strange, because often the false positive will be more damaging. In the cases where it is not, such as messages being sent with known malware attached, the receiving mail service could still deliver a short replacement message to the intended recipient instead, notifying them that something was blocked because of malware and providing essential details like the sender and subject line, so the recipient could take further action rather than miss something important.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  The real issue is a preexisting "dancing hippo" one where what people want doesn't line up with other higher minded ideals like security or freedom that others presume should dominate. (Whether said ideals are right is irrelevant for better or worse - the phenomenon can happen for good or ill.) Google cares about spam and malware because the users do. If nobody gave a crap about spam they received or did their own filtering on their "raw" local copies then they wouldn't bother with filtering beyond infastructural reasons. Spam and malware are the ultimate enemy of openness as it gives reasons to shift to centralization - analogous to how raiders helped lead to the rise of feudalism although the stakes are obvious vastly different.
  - Silhouette 7y ago
    I think most people would also care about not receiving important messages that someone was trying to send them, but since they often don't know what they're missing in this scenario, they don't tend to object or make decisions accordingly. I have a similar concern about a lot of privacy and data processing issues. My experience has been that many people aren't OK with what happens if they are told about it, but in most cases either they didn't previously know or perhaps they suspected but didn't think there was anything they could usefully do about it short of becoming some sort of digital hermit.
kevin_b_er 7y ago
That message protocol will not be federated due to how greed and a lust for control works on the internet in this time.
- jrockway 7y ago
  That is not the only reason people eschew federation. Think about all the federated protocols in common use today: email, SMS, phone. All of them are overrun by spam. 90% of the time when my phone rings, it's a robocall. That, my friend, is federation in action. It ain't great.

We need a new message protocol

by rc_mob 7y ago

We need a new message protocol

So Google--or any other big corporation--can take it over as well? I don't think coming up with yet another open protocol is the solution.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 7y ago

I fear this will lead to the same problem: If it’s interesting enough for Google, they will offer a free service, gobble up a large number of users, at which point they can hold the new protocol hostage, add their own extensions, and everyone else must follow.

sneak 7y ago
It’s called XMPP, and Google ran a public gateway federating for Google Talk. Basically nobody used it, and what little use it did see was mostly third parties sending spam to Google users over the gateway, so they shut it down. Centralized systems seem to give users what they want. This is why iMessage, FB Messenger, WhatsApp, Snapchat, and Instagram are huge, and email is dying (and XMPP failed to get any real traction in the first place).

Silhouette 7y ago

There's nothing wrong with the basic principle of email (other than its lack of built-in security, arguably). The problem is that certain large organisations now claim to offer an email service, but don't actually make it work properly. It might have been better for the rest of the community to block those services until they did work properly to force everyone to play by the same rules, but unfortunately we have reached a point where some of them are too big for that to be a practical solution. The obsession with fighting spam and malware means some mail services are now far too ready to accept false positives where they block legitimate mail, in order to reduce the risk of false negatives where they let illegitimate messages through. This seems strange, because often the false positive will be more damaging. In the cases where it is not, such as messages being sent with known malware attached, the receiving mail service could still deliver a short replacement message to the intended recipient instead, notifying them that something was blocked because of malware and providing essential details like the sender and subject line, so the recipient could take further action rather than miss something important.

Nasrudith 7y ago
The real issue is a preexisting "dancing hippo" one where what people want doesn't line up with other higher minded ideals like security or freedom that others presume should dominate. (Whether said ideals are right is irrelevant for better or worse - the phenomenon can happen for good or ill.) Google cares about spam and malware because the users do. If nobody gave a crap about spam they received or did their own filtering on their "raw" local copies then they wouldn't bother with filtering beyond infastructural reasons. Spam and malware are the ultimate enemy of openness as it gives reasons to shift to centralization - analogous to how raiders helped lead to the rise of feudalism although the stakes are obvious vastly different.
- Silhouette 7y ago
  I think most people would also care about not receiving important messages that someone was trying to send them, but since they often don't know what they're missing in this scenario, they don't tend to object or make decisions accordingly. I have a similar concern about a lot of privacy and data processing issues. My experience has been that many people aren't OK with what happens if they are told about it, but in most cases either they didn't previously know or perhaps they suspected but didn't think there was anything they could usefully do about it short of becoming some sort of digital hermit.

kevin_b_er 7y ago

That message protocol will not be federated due to how greed and a lust for control works on the internet in this time.

jrockway 7y ago
That is not the only reason people eschew federation. Think about all the federated protocols in common use today: email, SMS, phone. All of them are overrun by spam. 90% of the time when my phone rings, it's a robocall. That, my friend, is federation in action. It ain't great.