The Web’s Missing Interoperability(stratechery.com)
stratechery.com
The Web’s Missing Interoperability
https://stratechery.com/2021/the-webs-missing-interoperability/
96 comments
>make a better Facebook for people to use for their specific community or company, and then make it easy to tie your account to multiple communities, and then (maybe) start connecting communities.
Which, of course, was precisely how Facebook broke into the social network market in the first place.
Initially not just for college students, but students at specific colleges. Then connecting students between college, then bringing in family members of those students, and so on.
Which, of course, was precisely how Facebook broke into the social network market in the first place.
Initially not just for college students, but students at specific colleges. Then connecting students between college, then bringing in family members of those students, and so on.
Except now it’s much more expensive and difficult to match what people want in 2021. You can’t just make a face book of ... “Profiles”.
Trust me we’ve been working on https://github.com/Qbix/Platform and we only recently reached the point where people’s main complaint is the APPEARANCE hahaha
Trust me we’ve been working on https://github.com/Qbix/Platform and we only recently reached the point where people’s main complaint is the APPEARANCE hahaha
I can sort of see what they mean by appearance, but its not far off looking tidy. The issues are mostly around padding and UI element proportions.
Some of your icons are too large for the elements they are inside of, the scaling of form elements within your filter interface is somewhat inconsistent too.
If I wasn't completely slammed at work I'd be open to submitting a PR.
Some of your icons are too large for the elements they are inside of, the scaling of form elements within your filter interface is somewhat inconsistent too.
If I wasn't completely slammed at work I'd be open to submitting a PR.
Definitely would highly appreciate it!
(Even happy to compensate you if you email me, see links in my profile.)
(Even happy to compensate you if you email me, see links in my profile.)
Basically be Shopify for Social Networks?
That's what Ning tried to be back in the day. Maybe it's time for another attempt at that.
[deleted]
Heh, I published a post in a similar vein just today[1]. Lately I've been thinking the way to do it is have everyone publish a (paginated) Atom feed with all their public content interactions. So each item in the feed would be something like "published this blog post", "liked this tweet", "thinks this comment was written in bad faith", etc. And "follows this person" with a link to that person's atom feed. Then if you want to build a search engine/social network/recommender system, you can get started by crawling and indexing a bunch of feeds.
I'd like to make a web app (probably on replit since it makes self-hosting dead easy) that has plugins for a bunch of other sites. so you connect to all your other accounts, and then this app imports your data and publishes it to a single feed for you.
Obviously starting audience would be programmers, but I bet it could expand to a general audience too.
[1] https://news.findka.com/p/we-need-user-centric-data
I'd like to make a web app (probably on replit since it makes self-hosting dead easy) that has plugins for a bunch of other sites. so you connect to all your other accounts, and then this app imports your data and publishes it to a single feed for you.
Obviously starting audience would be programmers, but I bet it could expand to a general audience too.
[1] https://news.findka.com/p/we-need-user-centric-data
I’ve been noodling this idea for a few years. I think it’s a great idea and it being based on Atom/RSS is a great move.
The problem, I have found, is no one wants to pay for hosting. No one wants to self host. And by no one I mean no one that is using Facebook /Twitter / Insta / etc. and for this to really work, I think you need everyone hosting their own “log”.
Interested in seeing more work done in this space and am glad to see others feel the same as I do.
The problem, I have found, is no one wants to pay for hosting. No one wants to self host. And by no one I mean no one that is using Facebook /Twitter / Insta / etc. and for this to really work, I think you need everyone hosting their own “log”.
Interested in seeing more work done in this space and am glad to see others feel the same as I do.
>> The problem, I have found, is no one wants to pay for hosting. No one wants to self host.
Self hosting needs to be as easy as plugging a box into your router. This means some type of DNS or other way to find your node given all the ISPs failure to provide fixed IPs. Also a super easy management method and access controls (public, private, friends).
I have a lot more thoughts on that.
Self hosting needs to be as easy as plugging a box into your router. This means some type of DNS or other way to find your node given all the ISPs failure to provide fixed IPs. Also a super easy management method and access controls (public, private, friends).
I have a lot more thoughts on that.
Do you think there needs to be the infra to support the self hosting or the “killer app” first to drive the early adopters?
I think an internet that is mostly self-hosted is a healthy one and unlocks a lot of things I’ve been noodling with over the years. I’m hopeful someone smarter than me is close to getting us there.
I think an internet that is mostly self-hosted is a healthy one and unlocks a lot of things I’ve been noodling with over the years. I’m hopeful someone smarter than me is close to getting us there.
A few gaps in infrastructure need to be plugged first. We have most of the constituent parts, it's just that they lack administration layers suitable for modern internet users needs. It's work that requires overcoming inertia and tedium more than any particular smarts. (It'll likely go financially unrewarded too.)
indeed, what do you think about an onboarding like at https://demo.mro.name/shaarligo/o/p/ac2gthz
I love the core idea too. Also static hosting keeps getting cheaper, free-tier can take you pretty far, and self-hosting keeps getting easier.
That's a big reason why I'm excited about repl.it. You can self-host a github repo in about 2 clicks (not including account setup). I could see it increasing the reach of self-hosted apps a lot.
Actually I made a little proof of concept for this a week ago: https://github.com/jacobobryant/Feedstuff
Actually I made a little proof of concept for this a week ago: https://github.com/jacobobryant/Feedstuff
I don't think the issue is hosting the app itself, it's hosting each user's data. For the vast majority of users, hosting their own data is not even on the radar. They assume that whatever app they are using is hosting their data, and the only price they will accept for doing that is "free".
The app would include a database (perhaps sqlite), so that shouldn't be an issue unless I'm misunderstanding you. you can host it for free on replit already (albeit with sleeping/cold starts)
> The app would include a database (perhaps sqlite)
Meaning an sqlite database hosted with the app's code? How will "host it for free" scale when your app goes viral and you have a million plus (or a billion plus) users?
Meaning an sqlite database hosted with the app's code? How will "host it for free" scale when your app goes viral and you have a million plus (or a billion plus) users?
It'll scale because it's self-hosted. You don't serve everyone with the same app instance; everyone runs their own instance.
> It'll scale because it's self-hosted. You don't serve everyone with the same app instance; everyone runs their own instance.
So everyone has their own free hosting account with repl.it and runs an app instance on it? Yes, technically that's "free" as in "no cost", but it's not "free" as in "no effort". The latter is the kind of "free" that Facebook users expect.
So everyone has their own free hosting account with repl.it and runs an app instance on it? Yes, technically that's "free" as in "no cost", but it's not "free" as in "no effort". The latter is the kind of "free" that Facebook users expect.
It's hardly more effort than making a Facebook account, and replit is still young--it's only going to get easier.
> It's hardly more effort than making a Facebook account
I'm not talking about the effort involved in opening an account. I'm talking about the effort involved in managing one's own instance of an app. That is not zero, and nobody, not repl.it or anyone else, can magically make it zero. But it is zero for Facebook users, because they aren't managing anything; Facebook is.
If, OTOH, your idea is that repl.it does all the managing (what happens if the server hosting the app goes down? how is the data backed up? etc., etc.), then we're back to the scaling problem: how do you scale that to a huge number of users without either not being free, or adopting the same business model that Facebook has (the avoiding of which was supposed to be the reason for doing all this in the first place)?
I'm not talking about the effort involved in opening an account. I'm talking about the effort involved in managing one's own instance of an app. That is not zero, and nobody, not repl.it or anyone else, can magically make it zero. But it is zero for Facebook users, because they aren't managing anything; Facebook is.
If, OTOH, your idea is that repl.it does all the managing (what happens if the server hosting the app goes down? how is the data backed up? etc., etc.), then we're back to the scaling problem: how do you scale that to a huge number of users without either not being free, or adopting the same business model that Facebook has (the avoiding of which was supposed to be the reason for doing all this in the first place)?
my mother won't sign up at github.
This kind of thing might never hit mass-market (read Facebook-level) appeal, but I think if one branded it as an open-web network for creators (as opposed to Facebook, which is for mere “consumers”) you might reasonably avoid the hosting problem.
A “creator” will figure out how to host, be it a Wordpress.com site on the casual end, or something more specialized for the savvier creator.
A “creator” will figure out how to host, be it a Wordpress.com site on the casual end, or something more specialized for the savvier creator.
Interesting concept for sure. Is there a revenue model to attract top influencers? Maybe just links to a collection of Patreon-likes?
hm, no idea. I haven't thought about revenue models much since I've envisioned this more as a grass-roots thing than a startup opportunity. I think the main thing would be just making it dead easy to get started. You wouldn't necessarily need to jump start a new network since the whole point of this is to be interoperable with existing networks.
A good first step might be making a personal site generator. Put in links to your twitter/youtub/substack/medium/whatever accounts, and then you get a nice looking site with all your content in one place. Maybe throw in a subscribe button so people can get email digests of all your content.
and then, almost as a side effect, anyone who uses the site generator also is publishing it all as an atom feed.
A good first step might be making a personal site generator. Put in links to your twitter/youtub/substack/medium/whatever accounts, and then you get a nice looking site with all your content in one place. Maybe throw in a subscribe button so people can get email digests of all your content.
and then, almost as a side effect, anyone who uses the site generator also is publishing it all as an atom feed.
How about Facebook, which requires an account to view the person posts? How would those be read? Besides maybe requiring user & password and logging in with a headless browser.
Not sure if Instagram/Pinterest require a login too.
Entering in username + password is probably the only feasible way. Suboptimal for sure, but worked for mint...
In practice, this would probably start out with plugins for only sites that make data public. Not perfect, but still useful.
In practice, this would probably start out with plugins for only sites that make data public. Not perfect, but still useful.
I think the money is in the aggregator. Everyone creates their own “log” so the noise is crazy. You follow “influencers” or go to aggregate sites that only vet info, not produce it.
You could have the aggregate behind a paywall, you could have donations or ads as well.
You could have the aggregate behind a paywall, you could have donations or ads as well.
Web Monetization standard. Yes.
https://webmonetization.org
I've considered this perspective as well from a lower level. I'm a huge fan of gossip-style communication, and I've wondered why all my data is shredded across various databases when it could be all located within a single giant JSON on my phone, and then I could just gossip a version to my friends.
The key is privacy at the data-layer, and I have a start with my programming language for board games: http://www.adama-lang.org/
The key is privacy at the data-layer, and I have a start with my programming language for board games: http://www.adama-lang.org/
Have you seen ActivityPub? From a very quick glance, it seems like it might fit this, and it's relatively actively used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub
It's not RSS (which is a bit of a shame), but it scales better since it bakes in pushing / pulling patterns, where RSS only pulls.
It's not RSS (which is a bit of a shame), but it scales better since it bakes in pushing / pulling patterns, where RSS only pulls.
I have seen it but haven't looked into it too deeply. I think it's more complex/sophisticated than what I have in mind. i.e. it's meant to be a protocol for an entire social networking app, whereas I'm interested in a much smaller scope: just a raw event log. I figure if that's in place, everything else can be built on top. Heck, you could even use it as a base for an ActivityPub implementation! Write a tweet -> gets imported into your RSS event log -> gets published via ActivityPub.
Also, there is another protocol called Pubsubhubbub (yeah, I know...) which adds push on top of Atom/RSS. I know of at least one company, Superfeedr, that runs an implementation as a service (they were acquired by Medium): https://superfeedr.com/
Also, there is another protocol called Pubsubhubbub (yeah, I know...) which adds push on top of Atom/RSS. I know of at least one company, Superfeedr, that runs an implementation as a service (they were acquired by Medium): https://superfeedr.com/
I'm doing paginated atom feeds as microblog targeting laypeople: https://demo.mro.name/shaarligo - still quite rough.
Seeing Tim O'Reilly speaking at one of his web 2.0 summits around 2009 about the urgency of preventing a few companies/people monopolizing everything comes into my mind regularly when I see tech monopolist oligarchs swaggering around and being feted by a fawning media.
We ignored the need to regulate to enable open innovation and interoperability and allowed walled gardens of unprecedented size to be imposed on smaller businesses, from Apple, Amazon & Alphabet and on, unfair advantage and a disaster for smaller business evolution
We ignored the need to regulate to enable open innovation and interoperability and allowed walled gardens of unprecedented size to be imposed on smaller businesses, from Apple, Amazon & Alphabet and on, unfair advantage and a disaster for smaller business evolution
As the OP points out, the regulation that we are getting, so far, benefits these walled gardens by prioritizing privacy over interoperability.
Yes it's actually getting a lot worse!
Had a long discussion the other day about Amazon and where we went wrong as a society. Short version, Amazon should have been regulated to facilitate existing small specialist businesses supply chain and delivery, not directly compete with them and force them out of business. Amazon should have been fulfilling orders on behalf of mom & pop's knitting supply, not undercutting them and cutting them out. This is incredibly damaging to the tax base as most taxes are paid by small businesses. Now we have a pandemic where the big box stores and online retailers remain open while the mom & pops are closed and going bust. It's a slow moving economic disaster IMO
Had a long discussion the other day about Amazon and where we went wrong as a society. Short version, Amazon should have been regulated to facilitate existing small specialist businesses supply chain and delivery, not directly compete with them and force them out of business. Amazon should have been fulfilling orders on behalf of mom & pop's knitting supply, not undercutting them and cutting them out. This is incredibly damaging to the tax base as most taxes are paid by small businesses. Now we have a pandemic where the big box stores and online retailers remain open while the mom & pops are closed and going bust. It's a slow moving economic disaster IMO
>Amazon should have been fulfilling orders on behalf of mom & pop's knitting supply, not undercutting them and cutting them out. This is incredibly damaging to the tax base as most taxes are paid by small businesses.
It's benefiting to me, and I think society, to not pay extra for unnecessary middlemen. If the problem is insufficient taxes, then raise taxes.
It's benefiting to me, and I think society, to not pay extra for unnecessary middlemen. If the problem is insufficient taxes, then raise taxes.
raise taxes on who? If 'unnecessary middle men' are out of business that leaves a few wealthy consumers and a few centralized suppliers. The rest of the population will be unemployed supported by the state if they are lucky
Taxes on the wealthy. It is wealth redistribution one way or another, but a more efficient one than keeping middlemen around for no reason.
Middlemen still do have benefits. They provide resiliency. If Amazon commits serious fraud and is shut down, there is no one left. We should not have privately owned systems that are too big to fail.
Most wealthy people are multi passport stateless and keep their money offshore, paying little or no tax. The bigger the global corporation the more likely they are to be registered in Ireland or other tax free havens. There is no trickle down in taxes when a few have won the Monopoly game
> We ignored the need to regulate ... and allowed walled gardens of unprecedented size to be imposed
I suspect this was done intentionally and systematically, as a kind of "shadow policy". It's resulting in massive concentration of wealth and control, which, from certain sociopathic/political perspectives, could be argued to benefit the country in terms of global economy and national security.
I suspect this was done intentionally and systematically, as a kind of "shadow policy". It's resulting in massive concentration of wealth and control, which, from certain sociopathic/political perspectives, could be argued to benefit the country in terms of global economy and national security.
See also: Semantic web. RDF, OWL, https://solidproject.org/TR/protocol . It's the original intent of Tim-Berners Lee, the man who invented the web.
In my view the lack of authentication in the original semantic web concept made it a SEO gaming vector for years and years.
Knowing who to trust is as hard a problem as basic understanding / semantics.
Knowing who to trust is as hard a problem as basic understanding / semantics.
Trust is a harder problem than basic understanding / semantics, because it requires basic understanding / semantics as a prerequisite.
You might trust your banker with your money but not your personal life, and trust your friend with your personal life but not your bank account.
Therefore, you there must be explicit and implicit degrees of trust that are specifically trust "for some intention" or at even just "for some specific purpose." And then, you must trust that the meaning of any promise or guarantee is equivalent between parties.
You might trust your banker with your money but not your personal life, and trust your friend with your personal life but not your bank account.
Therefore, you there must be explicit and implicit degrees of trust that are specifically trust "for some intention" or at even just "for some specific purpose." And then, you must trust that the meaning of any promise or guarantee is equivalent between parties.
An unlikely outcome that I'd like to see is the following:
1. Legislation makes current models impossible - I'm imagining something like Section 230 being repealed, Twitter and Facebook being on the hook for anything anyone posts, which means they can't moderate and are forced to change their business model/effectively close shop.
2. People still want to blog/share/like.
3. Federated networks become a thing again because small communities are way easier to moderate. Nerds self host, regular people get accounts as part of their ISP subscription or pay a few bucks for some SaaS offering. Maybe a forward looking country gives you an e-identity on the official Mastodon instance where the ToS equals local law so we don't have to have that whole Twitter censorship discussion ever again.
4. Everyone lives happily ever after.
1. Legislation makes current models impossible - I'm imagining something like Section 230 being repealed, Twitter and Facebook being on the hook for anything anyone posts, which means they can't moderate and are forced to change their business model/effectively close shop.
2. People still want to blog/share/like.
3. Federated networks become a thing again because small communities are way easier to moderate. Nerds self host, regular people get accounts as part of their ISP subscription or pay a few bucks for some SaaS offering. Maybe a forward looking country gives you an e-identity on the official Mastodon instance where the ToS equals local law so we don't have to have that whole Twitter censorship discussion ever again.
4. Everyone lives happily ever after.
The repeal of Section 230 would mean more aggressive and large scale moderation, not less. Remember that the copyright liability incurred by DMCA and other copyright laws didn't kill YouTube, instead it directly led to the creation of ContentID.
I know, my assumption was it would be so much more moderation that they couldn't handle it without completely ruining the user experience.
For 3 to happen we would need better software. Do you have any suggestions that are the best in class?
> Twitter eventually cut off Instagram in-line image sharing, but by then it was too late.
It actually went in the opposite direction - Instagram shut down Twitter's ability to display their images in-line.
It actually went in the opposite direction - Instagram shut down Twitter's ability to display their images in-line.
The HN community will agree that there is a deep issue with interoperability and platform risk in Web 2.0, but will again have a knee-jerk response that the rapidly growing Web 3.0 community is awful, there's no point, etc. — because it's crypto.
How do you create a software application that exists and runs independently of the platform (and even hardware) on which it exists? How do you create a robust, unified, incentive-aligned decentralized consensus system?
Those working on crypto projects today already understand this.
How do you create a software application that exists and runs independently of the platform (and even hardware) on which it exists? How do you create a robust, unified, incentive-aligned decentralized consensus system?
Those working on crypto projects today already understand this.
Who decided that web 3.0 is built on crypto? I know some in the crypto community like to call it web 3.0, but I am still thinking web 3.0 is something different and built more on web 2.0
It's all nebulous. No one even agreed on what Web 2.0 meant, it's only in retrospect that we think we know.
If we were really sticking to versions being meaningful we probably should have bumped a version when frontend UI frameworks and javascript began dominating web application development, since best I could tell at the time Web 2.0 was just the addition of flat design and ajax calls.
If we were really sticking to versions being meaningful we probably should have bumped a version when frontend UI frameworks and javascript began dominating web application development, since best I could tell at the time Web 2.0 was just the addition of flat design and ajax calls.
He talks about about how privacy laws like those around contact lists are bad because make it harder for new social media companies to arise. Seems like a bad trade off for everyone but investors and for future users of The Crystal Network that I keep joking I will create: a network where you are rewarded with healing crystals in the mail for soothing one another on the platform, creating a veritable lattice of support
> The cause is Apple: its approach to cookies makes platform-based web storefronts increasingly difficult to monetize effectively
Can anyone explain this? I'm not sure what they are referring to.
Can anyone explain this? I'm not sure what they are referring to.
Previously, cookies could be used to track users across websites (e.g. multiple websites using the Shopify platform, by making a request to shopify.com), but also to provide useful functionality (e.g. remembering their contact details). Now, this is not possible anymore, due to first-party isolation being implemented in Safari and now Firefox.
Personally, I think this is not such a big deal, as the browser can remember your contact details for you anyway, and you can fill them out on any website. So I think it's a win for privacy and for users, but it's true that there are some downsides as well.
Personally, I think this is not such a big deal, as the browser can remember your contact details for you anyway, and you can fill them out on any website. So I think it's a win for privacy and for users, but it's true that there are some downsides as well.
It goes without saying to his audience that you can't "monetize a platform-based storefront" without tracking users across websites?
Maybe I don't understand what "monetize a platform-based storefront" means exactly. He's talking about the particular store on shopify making money, not shopify itself getting customers, right?
Maybe I don't understand what "monetize a platform-based storefront" means exactly. He's talking about the particular store on shopify making money, not shopify itself getting customers, right?
The author explains one of their main concerns:
> its attack on “tracking” — which goes far beyond the IDFA — makes it increasingly impossible to acquire users in one place and convert them in another
Somehow I can't bring myself to feel sympathy for business models affected by this.
> its attack on “tracking” — which goes far beyond the IDFA — makes it increasingly impossible to acquire users in one place and convert them in another
Somehow I can't bring myself to feel sympathy for business models affected by this.
Yeah, me neither. Privacy protections are being implemented by browsers because companies have a history of abuse. Access to this information is not a right, it's a privilege and it's being systematically revoked. They are not entitled to any user information at all and if they can't survive as a business without it then they need to find new ways to make money or go bankrupt.
He means Shopify. Shopify merchants (and other DTC companies) heavily use Facebook/Instagram to target the specific audience they are targeting. Shopify has since announced that there will be a tighter integration with Facebook Shops
What does that have to do with "apple's approach to cookies makes platform-based web storefronts increasingly difficult to monetize effectively"?
The web had interoperability but it was largely ignored and then replaced by silos and walled gardens. The Web 2.0 cognoscenti made a lot of the same mistakes as the Web 1.0 cognoscenti about how systems would be used and received by "normal" people.
A lot of good ideas had terrible usability and didn't get to a real tipping point. Contrast that with social media sites (even back to MySpace) that were far more usable to the average person.
As as an example, look at RSS (any version including Atom). It is a great technological solution for the Web 2.0 proponents. They were interested in long form postings and had a lot of posts on similar subjects. Their posts had titles, some categorization, and maybe even semantic elements. Making a "feed" to syndicate those posts was a pretty useful thing both for their visibility and you and I as readers.
What RSS doesn't offer is a good way to express short form informal posts on mixed subject matter. Even posting a simple link to an interesting page or just an image isn't well expressed with most RSS generating software and not handled well by the format or feed readers. Even the word "subscribe" implies a bit of a formal social anti-pattern.
Compare that to most social media sites, even going back to MySpace. The presented users with a single content field. The UI basically asked "What's up?". There's no implied formality of a post title or categorization. It just plops on top of a stack of your posts on your "feed".
That's not to say what social media sites have done with those user feeds is necessarily good (echo chambers, engagement manipulation, etc) but they served a desire of a lot of people. I'd venture that most people don't want to sit down and make long form posts with cognitive load like titles and categories.
Large social media sites have no use for interoperability because their money is made on engagement with their site/app. The Web 2.0 visionaries spent a lot of time navel gazing and being focused on their areas of interest so they missed a lot of thing social media has implemented. We're seeing interoperability start to happen again (Fediverse etc) with people taking the informal social media models and applying Web 2.0's decentralized concepts.
It's not clear is the decentralized social media can hit a critical mass of users because multimedia, especially video, is a huge draw for social media users and is hideously expensive to host and distribute. There's also effectively zero monetization and a lot of people are trying to be professional social media users.
A lot of good ideas had terrible usability and didn't get to a real tipping point. Contrast that with social media sites (even back to MySpace) that were far more usable to the average person.
As as an example, look at RSS (any version including Atom). It is a great technological solution for the Web 2.0 proponents. They were interested in long form postings and had a lot of posts on similar subjects. Their posts had titles, some categorization, and maybe even semantic elements. Making a "feed" to syndicate those posts was a pretty useful thing both for their visibility and you and I as readers.
What RSS doesn't offer is a good way to express short form informal posts on mixed subject matter. Even posting a simple link to an interesting page or just an image isn't well expressed with most RSS generating software and not handled well by the format or feed readers. Even the word "subscribe" implies a bit of a formal social anti-pattern.
Compare that to most social media sites, even going back to MySpace. The presented users with a single content field. The UI basically asked "What's up?". There's no implied formality of a post title or categorization. It just plops on top of a stack of your posts on your "feed".
That's not to say what social media sites have done with those user feeds is necessarily good (echo chambers, engagement manipulation, etc) but they served a desire of a lot of people. I'd venture that most people don't want to sit down and make long form posts with cognitive load like titles and categories.
Large social media sites have no use for interoperability because their money is made on engagement with their site/app. The Web 2.0 visionaries spent a lot of time navel gazing and being focused on their areas of interest so they missed a lot of thing social media has implemented. We're seeing interoperability start to happen again (Fediverse etc) with people taking the informal social media models and applying Web 2.0's decentralized concepts.
It's not clear is the decentralized social media can hit a critical mass of users because multimedia, especially video, is a huge draw for social media users and is hideously expensive to host and distribute. There's also effectively zero monetization and a lot of people are trying to be professional social media users.
a huge part of this article is about clubhouse & social networks means for virality, about how they can expand. taking contacts & pushing to them is the kind of main model that Clubhouse is doing.
> I get the argument around banning contact exports; unsurprisingly, there are calls that Apple do exactly that in the wake of Clubhouse’s rise (never mind the fact that contacts have been accessible — and thus have been accessed! — in this way for years). What people making these calls — and these laws — need to be more honest about, though, is that they killing competition.
what seems awkward, missing, to me is that all these virality systems are push model. each would be social network has to bootstrap, and it does it by making new users push a bunch of invites out to their friends.
where is the pull model? where can I go see my friend Cable's activity, see what networks he is most social on these days? Instagram posts to Twitter are mentioned in the article, but that's such a special purpose form, such a one off, made in part possible by the very general share-whatever nature of twitter.
some standards for social network users to be able too interlink & declare their other networks would be great, as a start. second, I want some activity monitor to be standardized, so I can get a quick heads-up cross network view of where I should be looking at my associates.
we lack the means to ambientlu explore each other socially, and social networking lacks a pull model of networking: we have to explicitly rendezvous on each network, owing to the lack of cross-network systems. re inter- the internet please, & let's standardize some good base level cross-social systems.
> I get the argument around banning contact exports; unsurprisingly, there are calls that Apple do exactly that in the wake of Clubhouse’s rise (never mind the fact that contacts have been accessible — and thus have been accessed! — in this way for years). What people making these calls — and these laws — need to be more honest about, though, is that they killing competition.
what seems awkward, missing, to me is that all these virality systems are push model. each would be social network has to bootstrap, and it does it by making new users push a bunch of invites out to their friends.
where is the pull model? where can I go see my friend Cable's activity, see what networks he is most social on these days? Instagram posts to Twitter are mentioned in the article, but that's such a special purpose form, such a one off, made in part possible by the very general share-whatever nature of twitter.
some standards for social network users to be able too interlink & declare their other networks would be great, as a start. second, I want some activity monitor to be standardized, so I can get a quick heads-up cross network view of where I should be looking at my associates.
we lack the means to ambientlu explore each other socially, and social networking lacks a pull model of networking: we have to explicitly rendezvous on each network, owing to the lack of cross-network systems. re inter- the internet please, & let's standardize some good base level cross-social systems.
> what seems awkward, missing, to me is that all these virality systems are push model. each would be social network has to bootstrap, and it does it by making new users push a bunch of invites out to their friends.
> where is the pull model? where can I go see my friend Cable's activity, see what networks he is most social on these days? Instagram posts to Twitter are mentioned in the article, but that's such a special purpose form, such a one off, made in part possible by the very general share-whatever nature of twitter.
Clubhouse actually is both push and pull. Yes, you can send invites to friends to get them onto the app, but having your contacts also lets them connect you to those already there when you first log on.
Of course this isn't the open pull model you're talking about, where I can discover new things my friend is doing, or find out where he is most active. But using the phone number as an identifier for social graphs is kind of a hack around the non-existence of such a thing.
> where is the pull model? where can I go see my friend Cable's activity, see what networks he is most social on these days? Instagram posts to Twitter are mentioned in the article, but that's such a special purpose form, such a one off, made in part possible by the very general share-whatever nature of twitter.
Clubhouse actually is both push and pull. Yes, you can send invites to friends to get them onto the app, but having your contacts also lets them connect you to those already there when you first log on.
Of course this isn't the open pull model you're talking about, where I can discover new things my friend is doing, or find out where he is most active. But using the phone number as an identifier for social graphs is kind of a hack around the non-existence of such a thing.
Yes, this describes the problems. Here is a detailed resource on what an actual solution would look like:
https://qbix.com/token
(Ignore the token part and read the rest.)
https://qbix.com/token
(Ignore the token part and read the rest.)
This is true, the web is in essence[0] what we, as a collective society, make of it. Many of the points he brings up I never even thought of, and I like to consider myself a staunch privacy advocate.
Namely, the points on how small businesses are affected by GDPR and anti-tracking / anti-cookie measures are fresh perspectives I've never thought of. To his point, all this is going to do is drive people to where the eye balls are, so instead of just marketing on Facebook (or Twitter, or Reddit) you want to market and convert your audience all on the same platform(s) because its increasingly difficult to do otherwise.
My counter point being of course, that this may have been inevitable anyway, since this really is increasingly the way people interact, is via apps like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc and less and less on the open web. Of course large corporations can and should and will kicking or screaming or no, comply with the laws, but little thought has been given how much those laws don't disrupt the fundamental problem: disrupting the stranglehold these companies have on interaction. I think a good amount of the GDPR, and Apple's recent moves have good ideas and net wins, but after reading this article, I can also see how it will simply, in the long term, act as a form of regulatory capture where only the largest entrenched companies can comply and small companies, particularly non tech small businesses, will be increasingly more reliant on those platforms going forward.
The solution isn't of course, to get rid of things like the GDPR, but like all laws and regulation, it needs to be re-thought and re-shaped as it affects the marketplace, and that's the crux of the problem, most regulation is set it and forget (particularly in the US) where there is little after thought given or follow up to it and augmenting it appropriately to minimize real downsides (not perceived ones that corporations complain about, but more barriers it creates to new businesses) and asking the question of is this acceptable or do we need to re-think some aspect of this?
I know this won't play that well either, its not going to be a popular debate among my peers, but its important we consider all the facts, none the less.
[0]: I may be reducing the article a little too much here, forgive me, I really do think everyone should read it first
Namely, the points on how small businesses are affected by GDPR and anti-tracking / anti-cookie measures are fresh perspectives I've never thought of. To his point, all this is going to do is drive people to where the eye balls are, so instead of just marketing on Facebook (or Twitter, or Reddit) you want to market and convert your audience all on the same platform(s) because its increasingly difficult to do otherwise.
My counter point being of course, that this may have been inevitable anyway, since this really is increasingly the way people interact, is via apps like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc and less and less on the open web. Of course large corporations can and should and will kicking or screaming or no, comply with the laws, but little thought has been given how much those laws don't disrupt the fundamental problem: disrupting the stranglehold these companies have on interaction. I think a good amount of the GDPR, and Apple's recent moves have good ideas and net wins, but after reading this article, I can also see how it will simply, in the long term, act as a form of regulatory capture where only the largest entrenched companies can comply and small companies, particularly non tech small businesses, will be increasingly more reliant on those platforms going forward.
The solution isn't of course, to get rid of things like the GDPR, but like all laws and regulation, it needs to be re-thought and re-shaped as it affects the marketplace, and that's the crux of the problem, most regulation is set it and forget (particularly in the US) where there is little after thought given or follow up to it and augmenting it appropriately to minimize real downsides (not perceived ones that corporations complain about, but more barriers it creates to new businesses) and asking the question of is this acceptable or do we need to re-think some aspect of this?
I know this won't play that well either, its not going to be a popular debate among my peers, but its important we consider all the facts, none the less.
[0]: I may be reducing the article a little too much here, forgive me, I really do think everyone should read it first
The solution, as it often is, is to create reasonable exemptions for small businesses. How do people expect a single person to start a business among all of these rules? Obviously there shouldn't be no rules, but they need to be easier to comply with. Right now it all kind of works, because there's a lack of enforcement. But we don't know how many people have given up, because they were uncertain of the regulations.
For new businesses, most support tickets will probably be handled manually. This could even include such mundane things as "could you reset my password" (if you haven't bothered to implement a "forgot my password" mechanism yet, which is perfectly reasonable). Another request could be, "could you delete my account and data". Normally, if a user asks you that, you should probably already do so anyway, GDPR just says that you must. It also says that if they ask for their data, you have to give it to them.
If you don't have many users yet, not many such requests will come in, so I don't think this is an undue burden. In the beginning, the burden will be roughly proportional to the number of users you have. If the burden becomes too high, it's easily automatable. So personally I don't think an explicit exemption for small businesses is really necessary.
If you don't have many users yet, not many such requests will come in, so I don't think this is an undue burden. In the beginning, the burden will be roughly proportional to the number of users you have. If the burden becomes too high, it's easily automatable. So personally I don't think an explicit exemption for small businesses is really necessary.
Meanwhile people literally google around for small businesses and sue them for operating in historic buildings without ADA access. Congrats, bobs coffee shop is now starbucks!
You're talking about stuff (presumably) happening in the US, but GDPR is an EU law. The regulatory landscape in the EU is rather different. The law also says that fines must be "proportionate". It is not, as a general rule, the goal of courts to bankrupt businesses, but rather to incentivize compliance.
Do the courts apply fines? I thought it was the regulatory agency that did that. If Starbucks is friends with the regulatory agency and Bob isn't, then why wouldn't this be the result?
I'm working on it, Ben [1].
Believe me, it is no easy thing to do.
[1] https://github.com/hyperhyperspace/hyperhyperspace-core
Believe me, it is no easy thing to do.
[1] https://github.com/hyperhyperspace/hyperhyperspace-core
How do you deal with browser tiny storage limitations for each domain?
We use IndexedDB, and in modern browsers the limit should be at least a few hundred megabytes (see for example this answer for Chrome limits [1], the situation is similar in Firefox).
So far this has been enough, but the apps we have are fairly simple (e.g. no media!). We'll see. Maybe media can be handled off browser.
[1] https://web.dev/storage-for-the-web/#how-much
So far this has been enough, but the apps we have are fairly simple (e.g. no media!). We'll see. Maybe media can be handled off browser.
[1] https://web.dev/storage-for-the-web/#how-much
[deleted]
Hi santi! =)
Hey Mike!
Mike is working on it as well:
https://braid.news/
Mike is working on it as well:
https://braid.news/
And now we have a new domain name: https://braid.org!
Social media apps made it impossible to export your social graph many years before GDPR. The only thing that would make them do it now is if they were legally required to.
I hate all of these attempts to monetize communication. The government should strictly regulate them.
> One of the reasons why GDPR is such a disaster is that it makes it all but impossible for a new social media company to ever be started in Europe
Maybe we don't need more "social media companies" of the type that GDPR is "a disaster" for.
Maybe we don't need more "social media companies" of the type that GDPR is "a disaster" for.
Some people like to socialize with each other.
Do these people also like to be tracked all the time and have their data sold to third parties who use that data to manipulate the people?
> One of the reasons why GDPR is such a disaster is that it makes it all but impossible for a new social media company to ever be started in Europe
And then goes on to
> Moreover, it’s a reasonable regulation: my friend on Facebook didn’t give permission for their information to be given to Snapchat, for example. It does, though, make it that much more difficult to bootstrap a Facebook competitor: the most valuable data (from a business perspective, anyways) is the social graph
So what does he propose then, huh? "Oh, forget about privacy. Since Facebook sits on a trove of personal data the never asked consent for, everyone should have the same access to the same trove of data"?
And then goes on to
> Moreover, it’s a reasonable regulation: my friend on Facebook didn’t give permission for their information to be given to Snapchat, for example. It does, though, make it that much more difficult to bootstrap a Facebook competitor: the most valuable data (from a business perspective, anyways) is the social graph
So what does he propose then, huh? "Oh, forget about privacy. Since Facebook sits on a trove of personal data the never asked consent for, everyone should have the same access to the same trove of data"?
Simple proposal:
The data should be tightly controlled by the user, like HIPAA.
Users can sell their own data for services, but they can't sell other people's data.
The data should be tightly controlled by the user, like HIPAA.
Users can sell their own data for services, but they can't sell other people's data.
[deleted]
That is the situation under GDPR right now (at least legally). But then the problem is with moving my data to another platform, especially if my data involves other people. For example, can I take my contacts from Facebook and move them to Signal? What if you are in my contacts, do I need your permission to move your info to Signal?
This is sort of like arguing, "if we make it illegal to push pills on people, then the Sackler family will have a monopoly on opiate addictions".
It's not the web, it's computing in general that has not evolved in the right direction. A grid is not a grid is not a grid. An image is not an image is not an image. Etc.
So rather than fixing the web, fix computing. It will fix the web too. If not, the web is even more in trouble.
Maybe you would be better providing examples instead of mysterious aphorisms, hard to tell if you are being serious or not.
I suppose what I mean is that there are many idioms that we have learned and gotten used to. For example, actions like copy and paste, or click and drag (touch gestures). Formats, like a table, grid, matrix, cells. Text is also universal and with editors we have a cursor, backspace, select, cut, but also, pagination, margins, fonts, boxes, etc., when we render.
Drawings are represented in various ways. We have paths, but then there are a multitude of serialization formats.
None of these are really first class citizens in computing. They are all application level concepts/implementations. Some are hardware dependent (margins, when we choose a printer with settings).
My point is that we would benefit if these "human needs" were met at a lower level. If a grid was a grid, an image was an image, a drawing a drawing, etc. At the application level, there could be enrichment, but the essence of a thing could be universal. Like a protocol. Once these things are protocols, everything would start functioning more alike and be able to interoperate in a better way. Including the web.
Some of these things (idioms, actions) appear to work across the board, but they are fragile, unpredictable, and often fail just when you need them the most. That's because every application solves these problems for itself. (Please don't say Windows Clipboard).
None of these are really first class citizens in computing. They are all application level concepts/implementations. Some are hardware dependent (margins, when we choose a printer with settings).
My point is that we would benefit if these "human needs" were met at a lower level. If a grid was a grid, an image was an image, a drawing a drawing, etc. At the application level, there could be enrichment, but the essence of a thing could be universal. Like a protocol. Once these things are protocols, everything would start functioning more alike and be able to interoperate in a better way. Including the web.
Some of these things (idioms, actions) appear to work across the board, but they are fragile, unpredictable, and often fail just when you need them the most. That's because every application solves these problems for itself. (Please don't say Windows Clipboard).
$technology {web, computing, ...} is a mere reflection of the dynamics in our species.
I almost achieved escape velocity with Matrix/Riot in my gaming group a couple years ago. Ultimately it was too buggy for them at the time and we ended up on FB messenger, but if it had worked they'd all be primed to join a Matrix-based social network right now.