> disparate services which rely on users having their own control of their node (Dispora, DiSo) make no sense when 99% of most normal people have no web hosting or other way of hosting such a node
Facebook effectively provides limited, specialized web hosting supported by ads. There's no reason companies can't offer exactly the same thing via open protocols.
> Now, open doesn't equate to no privacy - but you have to expect and assume that all nodes will treat privacy the same, otherwise the system fails. With a closed system you simply have to trust one actor with your privacy - the host network.
With a federated system you have the ability to blacklist nodes that misbehave. With a closed system you have virtually no ability to influence the provider's behaviour. I know which I'd choose.
> Open/closed is [sadly] not what consumers care about
Maybe not directly, but an open platform creates the possibility of competition between application providers. Consumers didn't want Compuserve or MSN 1.0, they wanted The Internet.
"Facebook effectively provides limited, specialized web hosting supported by ads. There's no reason companies can't offer exactly the same thing via open protocols."
If a few companies offer the hosting of nodes, rather than true "open"/"federated" where each user is in personal control of his node than really you have little change than the current system.
Rather than a monopoly on the social graph, you will have a biopoly/etc with control still spread between a small group of actors who will just bound together for mutual benefit.
The idea of true federation and disparate systems where each user is in personal control of his node is really the utopia. But sadly it's never going to happen.
Facebook effectively provides limited, specialized web hosting supported by ads. There's no reason companies can't offer exactly the same thing via open protocols.
> Now, open doesn't equate to no privacy - but you have to expect and assume that all nodes will treat privacy the same, otherwise the system fails. With a closed system you simply have to trust one actor with your privacy - the host network.
With a federated system you have the ability to blacklist nodes that misbehave. With a closed system you have virtually no ability to influence the provider's behaviour. I know which I'd choose.
> Open/closed is [sadly] not what consumers care about
Maybe not directly, but an open platform creates the possibility of competition between application providers. Consumers didn't want Compuserve or MSN 1.0, they wanted The Internet.