4 ms·

> Does Diaspora have a strong chat? It doesn't have chat at all. Diaspora wanted to make an app so that servers can communicate between each others. There are

by jokoon 13y ago

> Does Diaspora have a strong chat? It doesn't have chat at all. Diaspora wanted to make an app so that servers can communicate between each others. There are already tons of chat protocols, creating another one would be stupid. diaspora would not host anything, while facebook make both the app and the hosting, and keeps the data. Facebook also failed to implement some sort of craigslist, which is something that would really serve a big purpose for people in general (advertise for any sort of stuff, jobs, dating, help needed, local announcements...). I don't understand why they don't do that. > I have never thought the Diaspora project would succeed, because it's the social network nobody wants. Diaspora was not created to be wanted, diaspora was created so that users can care a little more about their data. Facebook makes people share data that the marketers try to get. People don't really care about those issues, and investors would not fund something like diaspora. So don't talk about investors and users like they're the same people. Currently there are no technology to make people keep the control over their data and use them with something like facebook. If the tech was there and it was as appealing as facebook, it would be used.

eropple 13y ago
> Diaspora was not created to be wanted, diaspora was created so that users can care a little more about their data. Which is the stupid part of the whole thing. If nobody wants it, that uses can care "a little more" about their data is immaterial because nobody's using it. "If" the tech was there--who cares about "the tech", really? Privacy nerds aren't numerous enough to drive a social network. If you want people to buy into what is (not what should or should not be, what is) a niche concern, you need to cater to their needs too.
- jokoon 13y ago
  Well it was a good technological intention, trying to make an open standard for social networking applications, to maybe open new roads for non-facebook developers. Maybe doing a web app was not the good idea though. The problem with facebook, is that devs can't access the data directly, but users can. It's also an API wall for developers who might have an idea and join the party. The only people to decide what new thing to do and experiment are the people at facebook. It's kinda odd, because the internet is supposed to be an open thing. They have this huge database of users, and all I see is some strange smartphone home app and some homepage redesigns, nothing really new since the website release. I mean as a tech, chatting is not a new thing, facebook just created another chatting protocol. People just chat using facebook instead, instead of sharing their AIM or MSN. That's why diaspora is cool, at least nobody has real direct authority on your data except the users, or at least it diminishes the link between the host and the user. It's more on the dev side. What sucks, is that the only real standard thing on the web is the mail. It's the backbone of online identity, it's still there. What can't we do the same for web applications ? The web was not meant for applications of the scale of facebook. Maybe we need finer, grainier ways of exchanging social data. Diaspora was not only about privacy issues, it also wanted to show people maybe there are other things to do with social network than just... commenting pics, chatting and joining groups about whatever thing. And seriously, facebook is a success because it appealed to basic stuff like this. Why can't some programmers have the ambition of making other things with social networking, and not being called stupid for trying so ? I mean if a guy Zuckerberg did not put a little effort, there would never have been facebook. I heard a former diaspora dev killed himself. That's not towards success, but nobody really cares either. It's like wanting innovation is a sin or something.
garrettlarson 13y ago
> Facebook also failed to implement some sort of craigslist, which is something that would really serve a big purpose for people in general (advertise for any sort of stuff, jobs, dating, help needed, local announcements...). I don't understand why they don't do that. Facebook introduced Marketplace in 2007: https://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2383962130 https://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2383962130
- jokoon 13y ago
  Do people really use this ? It's not a facebook feature anymore, it's oodle, and it's some kind of weird app. It's a fail. Anyways facebook is really an ass, it did not let me login because I tried to from a public wifi, even by resetting my password with my email, I had to try it on an old account. They are so many phishing on facebook it's not even funny. I'm sure zuckerberg is laughing his ass off when he's surrounded by all the salesmen type who wants to do this and that with facebook. I wish he could just quit facebook asap and try to make new projects. Or maybe he's totally fine with it, but I doubt he's thinking the site really evolved at all in terms of features. All that facebook was is a privacy outrage, bad hopes and huge datacenters, and a lost opportunity to work with google. And also "mom! don't comment on my wall!". And classmates bullying each other. And happy marketers analysing huge blobs of data.

by jokoon 13y ago

eropple 13y ago

> Diaspora was not created to be wanted, diaspora was created so that users can care a little more about their data. Which is the stupid part of the whole thing. If nobody wants it, that uses can care "a little more" about their data is immaterial because nobody's using it. "If" the tech was there--who cares about "the tech", really? Privacy nerds aren't numerous enough to drive a social network. If you want people to buy into what is (not what should or should not be, what is) a niche concern, you need to cater to their needs too.

jokoon 13y ago
Well it was a good technological intention, trying to make an open standard for social networking applications, to maybe open new roads for non-facebook developers. Maybe doing a web app was not the good idea though. The problem with facebook, is that devs can't access the data directly, but users can. It's also an API wall for developers who might have an idea and join the party. The only people to decide what new thing to do and experiment are the people at facebook. It's kinda odd, because the internet is supposed to be an open thing. They have this huge database of users, and all I see is some strange smartphone home app and some homepage redesigns, nothing really new since the website release. I mean as a tech, chatting is not a new thing, facebook just created another chatting protocol. People just chat using facebook instead, instead of sharing their AIM or MSN. That's why diaspora is cool, at least nobody has real direct authority on your data except the users, or at least it diminishes the link between the host and the user. It's more on the dev side. What sucks, is that the only real standard thing on the web is the mail. It's the backbone of online identity, it's still there. What can't we do the same for web applications ? The web was not meant for applications of the scale of facebook. Maybe we need finer, grainier ways of exchanging social data. Diaspora was not only about privacy issues, it also wanted to show people maybe there are other things to do with social network than just... commenting pics, chatting and joining groups about whatever thing. And seriously, facebook is a success because it appealed to basic stuff like this. Why can't some programmers have the ambition of making other things with social networking, and not being called stupid for trying so ? I mean if a guy Zuckerberg did not put a little effort, there would never have been facebook. I heard a former diaspora dev killed himself. That's not towards success, but nobody really cares either. It's like wanting innovation is a sin or something.

garrettlarson 13y ago

> Facebook also failed to implement some sort of craigslist, which is something that would really serve a big purpose for people in general (advertise for any sort of stuff, jobs, dating, help needed, local announcements...). I don't understand why they don't do that. Facebook introduced Marketplace in 2007: https://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2383962130 https://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2383962130

jokoon 13y ago
Do people really use this ? It's not a facebook feature anymore, it's oodle, and it's some kind of weird app. It's a fail. Anyways facebook is really an ass, it did not let me login because I tried to from a public wifi, even by resetting my password with my email, I had to try it on an old account. They are so many phishing on facebook it's not even funny. I'm sure zuckerberg is laughing his ass off when he's surrounded by all the salesmen type who wants to do this and that with facebook. I wish he could just quit facebook asap and try to make new projects. Or maybe he's totally fine with it, but I doubt he's thinking the site really evolved at all in terms of features. All that facebook was is a privacy outrage, bad hopes and huge datacenters, and a lost opportunity to work with google. And also "mom! don't comment on my wall!". And classmates bullying each other. And happy marketers analysing huge blobs of data.