3 ms·

>We need a protocol, a specification for completely decentralised, carry-with-us social networks. I know it seems logical that a "social network protocol" is t

by jasode 7y ago

>We need a protocol, a specification for completely decentralised, carry-with-us social networks. I know it seems logical that a "social network protocol" is the answer to replace Facebook but after studying the mechanics of social networks, I've concluded that focusing on technical protocols is incorrect. My suggestion to programmers seriously thinking of new solutions in the social networking space: don't get sidetracked into thinking about the protocol because if you do, your new social network will end up in the graveyard of previous failed projects like Diaspora. Instead, think about the database of real names. My previous comment on why protocols like ActivityPub & Mastodon are not the answer for a general purpose social network adopted by the masses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18727230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18727230 Also, another previous comment on how focusing on protocols is (inadvertently) analyzing the wrong drivers for success: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231960 And another previous comment about how an open and free-to-use protocol like Signal does not mean Moxie Marlinspike is willing to federate with others' servers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20232499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20232499 (If you still believe that designing a new protocol is the correct answer after reading my 3 previous comments, please explain your thinking. I'm open to changing my mind on this.)

cat199 7y ago
agree that protocol doesn't solve the funding/promotion problem. but this is not an either/or, it's a both/and - the problems with excessive influence on some open protocol (r.e. your Moxie comment) are funding problems (perhaps what you mean). But, even if funding is the main issue, one still needs something worthy of funding.
beatgammit 7y ago
The problem here is that you're looking at it from an entrepreneur perspective, while the people building it are looking at it from a privacy perspective. I don't use Facebook because of the reasons it's popular. I don't want my information easily accessible online, and I do want as much control as possible over who sees my information. I believe it should be easy to give and revoke access to my information and content. The European solution here is to legislate our way to that end goal, whereas the "market" way is to make something that's appealing that gets you most of what you liked about the centralized service, but with more control over your data. And that's why I'm so interested in projects like ActivityPub and Matrix: it's not because I think they'll become popular, but because of what will happen if they become popular. If I was to invest money, I'd go with Facebook's business model every time, but if I'm going to evangelise something, it'll be something like Mastodon or Riot.im.
oliwarner 7y ago
The route to market is tough here, whatever the technological solution. People don't believe Facebook is as bad as it is, even when Facebook admits they are to their faces. So whatever we're talking about here, it realistically only comes about after Facebook is ordered to break up or stop trading. After that, I think there are multiple routes to a true peer-to-peer social network (I've just detailed what I'd do in in another comment in this thread) but the important thing is that companies (looking at phone manufacturers here) aren't storming off and reinventing their own custom shapes of wheel. So unless Facebook does this all for us and then vanishes (yeah right), it has to be a international standard spec. Nothing else could get enough traction at the consumer-electronics level. My idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21069736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21069736

by jasode 7y ago

cat199 7y ago

agree that protocol doesn't solve the funding/promotion problem. but this is not an either/or, it's a both/and - the problems with excessive influence on some open protocol (r.e. your Moxie comment) are funding problems (perhaps what you mean). But, even if funding is the main issue, one still needs something worthy of funding.

beatgammit 7y ago

The problem here is that you're looking at it from an entrepreneur perspective, while the people building it are looking at it from a privacy perspective. I don't use Facebook because of the reasons it's popular. I don't want my information easily accessible online, and I do want as much control as possible over who sees my information. I believe it should be easy to give and revoke access to my information and content. The European solution here is to legislate our way to that end goal, whereas the "market" way is to make something that's appealing that gets you most of what you liked about the centralized service, but with more control over your data. And that's why I'm so interested in projects like ActivityPub and Matrix: it's not because I think they'll become popular, but because of what will happen if they become popular. If I was to invest money, I'd go with Facebook's business model every time, but if I'm going to evangelise something, it'll be something like Mastodon or Riot.im.

oliwarner 7y ago

The route to market is tough here, whatever the technological solution. People don't believe Facebook is as bad as it is, even when Facebook admits they are to their faces. So whatever we're talking about here, it realistically only comes about after Facebook is ordered to break up or stop trading. After that, I think there are multiple routes to a true peer-to-peer social network (I've just detailed what I'd do in in another comment in this thread) but the important thing is that companies (looking at phone manufacturers here) aren't storming off and reinventing their own custom shapes of wheel. So unless Facebook does this all for us and then vanishes (yeah right), it has to be a international standard spec. Nothing else could get enough traction at the consumer-electronics level. My idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21069736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21069736