4 ms·
Your first sentence is right as far as it goes. I agree with you that G+ would be better decentralized, and based on open standards. But I think they tried tha
by joebadmo 15y ago
Your first sentence is right as far as it goes.
I agree with you that G+ would be better decentralized, and based on open standards. But I think they tried that with Buzz and Wave, both catastrophic failures. And I think the strategy this time is to try to nail down the user experience first. I think the real names policy is a part of that, too (though I agree, too, that this is a bad policy).[0]
Could all be wishful thinking, I suppose.
[0]: Some weak evidence for this being the strategy: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019052 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019052
- patrickaljord 15y agoActually, Google+ is based on open standards, here is what Evan Prodromou (the creator of http://status.net http://status.net, one of the biggest decentralized open source social network) has to say about the API: > Activity Streams, PoCo, OAuth 2. I feel like the girl in Jurassic Park. "I know this!" https://plus.google.com/104323674441008487802/posts/jJNsUDPcxkB https://plus.google.com/104323674441008487802/posts/jJNsUDPc... So, you couldn't get more open and decentralized than that. G+ api is read only for now though but the devs made it clear that it won't stay that way.
- joebadmo 15y agoI think what many of us really want is federation or some level of interoperability such that we can run our own services that work transparently with G+ as a peer. More like the way email works. (As a bonus, this would neatly sidestep the ano/pseudonymity issue.) So, when I can run byjoemoon+ on my own server and interoperate with G+ users with complete feature parity, I'll be really happy. Meanwhile, I think the API stuff is great, but only a half-measure.
- saraid216 15y agoThis was the plan with Google Wave; did they not provide people with the ability to set up their own Wave boxes? How'd that turn out?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]