30 ms·

A centralized social network is what's wrong. Despite their best intentions they're still going to have all their users and developers by the balls. This abso

A centralized social network is what's wrong. Despite their best intentions they're still going to have all their users and developers by the balls. This absolutely will not replace Facebook or Twitter, it'll be just another one of the dozens of copycats like Path. What really needs to happen is an open decentralized protocol needs to be agreed upon for newsfeeds + blog posts (wordpress) + microblog (twitter). Then everyone can write their own servers and clients and operate in a manner like Email currently works.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
unimpressive 14y ago
> What really needs to happen is an open decentralized protocol needs to be agreed upon for newsfeeds + blog posts (wordpress) + microblog (twitter). Then everyone can write their own servers and clients and operate in a manner like Email currently works. Then do it. Make everyone look like idiots for not doing it sooner. Make it so cool I have to sign up.
- loceng 14y ago
  I'm guessing people are working on it. It's not an easy problem to solve though.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    I'm guessing people are working on it. They are: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/ http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/
    - loceng 14y ago
      Cool, thanks.
- dj2stein9 14y ago
  Oh I've definitely been thinking about it. One big problem is it wouldn't be nearly as lucrative as other potential project ideas -- it simply won't be possible to build another $100B Facebook style corporation around a social network. Diaspora was kind of onto the right idea but I think they completely chose the wrong technology stack and are now stuck in the mud without any momentum.
  - encoderer 14y ago
    You think it was the technology stack and not just that users and developers were disinterested? As a developer, I never thought once about building an app or integration for Diaspora. That's why App.Net might have a chance -- he's making this about targeting developers. There's a reason Apple has spent millions marketing different 3rd party apps -- and the whole ecosystem via "there's an app for that". There's a reason "killer app" is part of our lexicon. There's a reason Steve Ballmer jumped around on stage screaming 'Developers!' and there's a reason XCode is free now. Building it is not a guarantee that they will come. But it is a prerequisite.
    - dj2stein9 14y ago
      Rails was a horrible technology choice to to build an open decentralized messaging protocol. They were doomed from the start. NodeJS would be a better choice now. Are there really that many developers clamoring to build new apps on yet another closed, for-profit, centralized social network with no users? I sure don't. I'm already done with Twitter and Facebook apps, the centralized model is simply not the way forward and I can't be alone with this opinion. Techcrunch posted an editorial a while back that I agree with: http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/03/the-federated-web-should-be-easier-than-it-sounds/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/03/the-federated-web-should-be...
      - icebraining 14y ago
        Can you expand on why you consider Rails to have doomed them, and why NodeJS would be better? I'm not particularly familiar with either technology (besides reading about them here on HN), but it's my understanding that Rails powers some very big websites, like Hulu and Github. That said, there's already a working Twitter-like distributed network. I hard my own StatusNet node running on my personal server and getting messages from people on Identi.ca, until I realized that I found the idea of the platform interesting, but not the platform itself (nor Twitter, for that matter). The fact that half the accounts were abandoned didn't help either.
icebraining 14y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StatusNet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StatusNet
anu_gupta 14y ago
The reason that no one has managed to make a proper decentralised version of Twitter is that it's really, really hard - much harder than saying "what really needs to happen is..."
jemeshsu 14y ago
http://ampify.it/ http://ampify.it/ Not sure why the down vote. I'm not associated to the project. Just to highlight an effort of a decentralised social platform.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

unimpressive 14y ago

> What really needs to happen is an open decentralized protocol needs to be agreed upon for newsfeeds + blog posts (wordpress) + microblog (twitter). Then everyone can write their own servers and clients and operate in a manner like Email currently works. Then do it. Make everyone look like idiots for not doing it sooner. Make it so cool I have to sign up.

loceng 14y ago
I'm guessing people are working on it. It's not an easy problem to solve though.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  I'm guessing people are working on it. They are: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/ http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/
  - loceng 14y ago
    Cool, thanks.
dj2stein9 14y ago
Oh I've definitely been thinking about it. One big problem is it wouldn't be nearly as lucrative as other potential project ideas -- it simply won't be possible to build another $100B Facebook style corporation around a social network. Diaspora was kind of onto the right idea but I think they completely chose the wrong technology stack and are now stuck in the mud without any momentum.
- encoderer 14y ago
  You think it was the technology stack and not just that users and developers were disinterested? As a developer, I never thought once about building an app or integration for Diaspora. That's why App.Net might have a chance -- he's making this about targeting developers. There's a reason Apple has spent millions marketing different 3rd party apps -- and the whole ecosystem via "there's an app for that". There's a reason "killer app" is part of our lexicon. There's a reason Steve Ballmer jumped around on stage screaming 'Developers!' and there's a reason XCode is free now. Building it is not a guarantee that they will come. But it is a prerequisite.
  - dj2stein9 14y ago
    Rails was a horrible technology choice to to build an open decentralized messaging protocol. They were doomed from the start. NodeJS would be a better choice now. Are there really that many developers clamoring to build new apps on yet another closed, for-profit, centralized social network with no users? I sure don't. I'm already done with Twitter and Facebook apps, the centralized model is simply not the way forward and I can't be alone with this opinion. Techcrunch posted an editorial a while back that I agree with: http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/03/the-federated-web-should-be-easier-than-it-sounds/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/03/the-federated-web-should-be...
    - icebraining 14y ago
      Can you expand on why you consider Rails to have doomed them, and why NodeJS would be better? I'm not particularly familiar with either technology (besides reading about them here on HN), but it's my understanding that Rails powers some very big websites, like Hulu and Github. That said, there's already a working Twitter-like distributed network. I hard my own StatusNet node running on my personal server and getting messages from people on Identi.ca, until I realized that I found the idea of the platform interesting, but not the platform itself (nor Twitter, for that matter). The fact that half the accounts were abandoned didn't help either.

icebraining 14y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StatusNet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StatusNet

anu_gupta 14y ago

The reason that no one has managed to make a proper decentralised version of Twitter is that it's really, really hard - much harder than saying "what really needs to happen is..."

jemeshsu 14y ago

http://ampify.it/ http://ampify.it/ Not sure why the down vote. I'm not associated to the project. Just to highlight an effort of a decentralised social platform.