4 ms·

One way to look at the current situation in social networks is that it is a rehash of the pre-Internet situation. Pre-Internet, some institutions already had in

One way to look at the current situation in social networks is that it is a rehash of the pre-Internet situation. Pre-Internet, some institutions already had internal networks with mail systems and so forth, but each network was an isolated island. The internet enabled people in different networks to talk with each other. The social networks of today are isolated islands, and I would love to see a "social internet", in the sense of a suite of protocols that allows different social networks to be directly connected. I am thinking in the direction of Jabber for instant messaging and OpenID for authentication, i.e. some set of protocols that is truly aligned with the distributed philosophy of the original internet. Unfortunately, the structure of financial rewards is not aligned with such a goal. I do hope that Google+ gets just enough momentum to force Facebook into cooperating on that front.

thristian 15y ago
The OStatus[1] specification enables distributed operation of Twitter-like interactions (specifically, short status messages, @replies and direct messages), so there's that. The people who worked on that are working on a new revision[2] that presumably will try to address the use-cases of sites like Google+. [1]: http://ostatus.org/about http://ostatus.org/about [2]: https://plus.google.com/104323674441008487802/posts/it3iBLUja4n https://plus.google.com/104323674441008487802/posts/it3iBLUj...
- 18pfsmt 15y ago
  This is interesting and good info. I am of the mind that social networks that are privy to personal info should not be run by for-profit companies unless they are being paid directly by the users, not adverts. I'm not sure how widespread this belief is, but it is my belief, and I hope we can move things in that way.
- pgroves 15y ago
  For any new technology (here, the example is social media), there is a natural evolution from closed to open standards. Early on, lots of proprietary code is modified as quickly as possible to see what works well in practice. Some companies win, some lose. An industry group trying to decide what to put in a standard is pointless b/c it's all hypothetical what features will survive the test of time. Eventually, however, an open standards organization should come in and say "these are the standard features, let's encapsulate them in an open standard that everyone uses." This has been proven to be a very healthy way to get to an open standard that really works well in practice. In 2011, I believe social media is ready to move to an open standard. The last five to ten years has seen a lot of technology built and verified by trial and error. There certainly has been enough capital investment in social media systems. The basics of what Facebook and Twitter do are a very good start. Something like OStatus can define the basics of what social media is by looking at what really works, which would not have been possible even a few years ago. This is why I'm disappointed in google+. The social media industry is at the point in it's life cycle that it can move to an open standard. Google was in a unique position to ram it through all at once. Instead, they decided to make yet another closed system with minor improvements over the existing competitors. They may win lots of users in the short term but a bigger shift to open standards is coming, but now we have to wait longer for it.
  - thristian 15y ago
    I too wish G+ were federated (or at least federable), and it's kind of sad that it's not... on the other hand, I've seen a number of Google employees making the right noises[1] about APIs and distributed operation, and reaching out to other social networks, so I'm still positive. [1]: See this thread: https://plus.google.com/104323674441008487802/posts/1EzrmG9KjUZ https://plus.google.com/104323674441008487802/posts/1EzrmG9K...

thristian 15y ago

The OStatus[1] specification enables distributed operation of Twitter-like interactions (specifically, short status messages, @replies and direct messages), so there's that. The people who worked on that are working on a new revision[2] that presumably will try to address the use-cases of sites like Google+. [1]: http://ostatus.org/about http://ostatus.org/about [2]: https://plus.google.com/104323674441008487802/posts/it3iBLUja4n https://plus.google.com/104323674441008487802/posts/it3iBLUj...

18pfsmt 15y ago
This is interesting and good info. I am of the mind that social networks that are privy to personal info should not be run by for-profit companies unless they are being paid directly by the users, not adverts. I'm not sure how widespread this belief is, but it is my belief, and I hope we can move things in that way.
pgroves 15y ago
For any new technology (here, the example is social media), there is a natural evolution from closed to open standards. Early on, lots of proprietary code is modified as quickly as possible to see what works well in practice. Some companies win, some lose. An industry group trying to decide what to put in a standard is pointless b/c it's all hypothetical what features will survive the test of time. Eventually, however, an open standards organization should come in and say "these are the standard features, let's encapsulate them in an open standard that everyone uses." This has been proven to be a very healthy way to get to an open standard that really works well in practice. In 2011, I believe social media is ready to move to an open standard. The last five to ten years has seen a lot of technology built and verified by trial and error. There certainly has been enough capital investment in social media systems. The basics of what Facebook and Twitter do are a very good start. Something like OStatus can define the basics of what social media is by looking at what really works, which would not have been possible even a few years ago. This is why I'm disappointed in google+. The social media industry is at the point in it's life cycle that it can move to an open standard. Google was in a unique position to ram it through all at once. Instead, they decided to make yet another closed system with minor improvements over the existing competitors. They may win lots of users in the short term but a bigger shift to open standards is coming, but now we have to wait longer for it.
- thristian 15y ago
  I too wish G+ were federated (or at least federable), and it's kind of sad that it's not... on the other hand, I've seen a number of Google employees making the right noises[1] about APIs and distributed operation, and reaching out to other social networks, so I'm still positive. [1]: See this thread: https://plus.google.com/104323674441008487802/posts/1EzrmG9KjUZ https://plus.google.com/104323674441008487802/posts/1EzrmG9K...