6 ms·
I think this is an example of seeing the past through rose-coloured glasses. Yes there was Flickr but you could discover photos. Thing is, Flickr is still ther
by cletus 14y ago
I think this is an example of seeing the past through rose-coloured glasses.
Yes there was Flickr but you could discover photos. Thing is, Flickr is still there and you can still use it. What's clear from this is that Flickr didn't (and doesn't) cover what is the use case for most people: sharing photos with a limited group of friends and family.
Technorati? Honestly, I think this is an example of living inside a very small bubble. I'd honestly never heard of Technorati until long after it had waned.
I don't agree that the monetization of the Web has degraded the value (to the user) of links on sites other than links on sites aren't the primary discovery mechanism like they used to be, which is actually a good thing (IMHO).
> In the early part of this century, if you made a service that let users create or share content, the expectation was that they could easily download a full-fidelity copy of their data, or import that data into other competitive services, with no restrictions
This is only true to a limited extent IMHO. The primary services for creating information 10+ years ago were email providers. Because Web-based mail was a latecomer, services like Yahoo Mail and Hotmail grew up in an era where many people used Outlook, Thunderbird and other desktop email clients so they had to support POP3 (and later IMAP) and you could use those services to export your mail.
But that isn't the same as designing your services for interoperability. That was an unintended consequence.
As the idea of "your mail, everywhere (you have an Internet connection)" became dominant, so did Webmail. POP3/IMAP became less important.
Again, I consider this a net positive change.
> In the early days of the social web, there was a broad expectation that regular people might own their own identities by having their own websites
This I disagree with. Having your own domain and Website 10+ years ago was pretty unusual. Administering your own site is not easy, particularly as malware became more prevalent. This has declined because no one wants to run their own Website (or email server for that matter) because it's a crazy amount of effort for very little real gain.
The only real problem I see with the present state of the Web is that Facebook wants to own all your data. It wants to be your identity. It wants to be your Internet. That's bad. It's bad for the Web and bad for consumers. But honestly, I don't see it coming to pass. Facebook is just as susceptible to disruption as so many behemoths that have come (and gone) before it.
10+ years ago Microsoft dominated your computing environment. Many couldn't envision a future that would break free of this grasp. In a few short years Microsoft has diminished their control of your computing experience in ways few could've predicted. I'll just leave this as an example of the danger of extrapolation:
http://xkcd.com/605/ http://xkcd.com/605/
- SoftwareMaven 14y agosharing photos with a limited group of friends and family This can't be understated. As a highly technical person running my own web services, even I rarely posted photos. The support burden of managing the server, securing it, and keeping family up-to-date on passwords was just never worth it. Facebook wants to own all your data. It wants to be your identity. I would love to hear ideas for ways we can fix this that are realistic because I completely agree with you. Any ideas have to recognize the value that sites like FB provide (as the OP did not) and come up with better solutions. In 1995, I would not have believed that Microsoft would not be the focal point of the industry. The Internet shifted things such that Microsoft is no longer the focal point. It can (and probably will) happen again to Google and FB.
- locopati 14y ago'I would love to hear ideas for ways we can fix this that are realistic' Peer-to-peer social with discovery. A system where companies/people/groups could self-host their own server, companies could host for others, but all the systems could talk to one another. Data gets stored where you want it to - on your own system or on another (though it's portable even there, by design).
- yawn 14y agoAre you interested in building this?
- SoftwareMaven 14y agoI agree that this is probably the right answer. Unfortunately, it's a difficult business model to pursue and open source may not be able to solve it. I look at this like I look at Linux versus Windows/OS X (as I type on my MBA next to my work Linux laptop): Open source may provide an alternative that, for a certain class of people, is every bit as good as the commercial mainstream; but for Joe Sixpack and Molly Mall, using such a solution doesn't even factor into their consciousness. It's not that it isn't good enough; it's that it doesn't even exist on their plane of existence. I've spent a reasonable amount of time thinking about this (as a side-thread from a previous start-up I was involved with), and I have yet to come up with a combination that satisfies my preferences for data privacy and ownership with "normal people's" preferences for ease of use. Unless a catastrophic failure occurs (Facebook crashes and loses everything), I don't think people will realize there might be better solutions.