3 ms·

We do and no one uses it. There is some truth to the classic HN post that "Twitter can be built in a weekend". A service / protocol that can distribute 280 cha

We do and no one uses it. There is some truth to the classic HN post that "Twitter can be built in a weekend". A service / protocol that can distribute 280 character messages isn't really where the value is for a service like Twitter. It's 20% engineering, 80% recruiting the right users, retaining them, and getting them to engage on the platform. Additionally, open protocols are way harder to evolve and are therefore less competitive with closed services. The only reason why email has stuck around as long as it has is because it locked everyone in with its network effect before commercial players figured out how to compete. Additionally, email isn't really an open protocol in practice. Sure, it's spec'd, but in order to actually participate in the network you need to navigate a really complicated system of anti-spam reputation systems. This is why people just end up paying companies like Twilio to send email instead of running their own servers. Overall, I don't think we should be looking to learn any lessons from email. It achieved market dominance in a time that doesn't look anything like the modern era, and is much more complex than most people realize.

riffic 5y ago
> We do and no one uses it. This is straight up denialist and hyperbolic FUD. There's a healthy and vibrant ecosystem surrounding the federated social web, which has been a thing since 2008 or so. Also, I would argue that email's staying power isn't quite backed by the answer you gave ("it locked everyone in with its network effect") but more along the lines that it survived the Lindy effect (the great thing about this is that it's not going to its grave as a technology anytime soon). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
- peterhunt 5y ago
  I think the denialism is that open standards somehow magically win. That's only happened a few times and is the reason that the Web is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure humanity has ever created. Yes, there are people using federated social products but the growth rate is low and so are the absolute numbers. If growth were good, we would see VC backed startups trying to profit off of it. Why do you think that is?

riffic 5y ago

> We do and no one uses it. This is straight up denialist and hyperbolic FUD. There's a healthy and vibrant ecosystem surrounding the federated social web, which has been a thing since 2008 or so. Also, I would argue that email's staying power isn't quite backed by the answer you gave ("it locked everyone in with its network effect") but more along the lines that it survived the Lindy effect (the great thing about this is that it's not going to its grave as a technology anytime soon). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

peterhunt 5y ago
I think the denialism is that open standards somehow magically win. That's only happened a few times and is the reason that the Web is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure humanity has ever created. Yes, there are people using federated social products but the growth rate is low and so are the absolute numbers. If growth were good, we would see VC backed startups trying to profit off of it. Why do you think that is?