Craig Newmark on the Web’s Next Big Problem
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: Craig Newmark on the Web’s Next Big Problem
#2It's a great idea ... I bet it ends up just like openid though .... every big company competing to be the provider and hesitant to accept anyone else on their own platforms.
Re: Craig Newmark on the Web’s Next Big Problem
#3At http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html, pg speculates that ideas 4 (outsourced IT), 18 (the WebOS), and 19 (application and/or data hosting) can be bundled.
I think Newmark's vision may belong in this bundle as well. It somehow feels like part of the same domain. Though as pg says, "the way to find such a grand, overarching solution is probably not to approach it directly, but to start by solving smaller, specific problems, then gradually expand your scope."
So the real problem is how to crack it open? What are the first steps that lead fruitfully into the bigger problem domain?
Re: Craig Newmark on the Web’s Next Big Problem
#4It's an interesting idea and I was with him until he said the government should be involved to enforce this. The government doesn't regulate any meaningful relationships in my life so why should it regulate who I decide to trust? Seems like a fantasy to even suggest that it could do so.
Re: Craig Newmark on the Web’s Next Big Problem
#5Cafe Reverie FTW.
Re: Craig Newmark on the Web’s Next Big Problem
#6For the large part, such a trust network already exists with Facebook. Yes, it's not perfect, and yes, it probably can be better, but when you want some form of trust it's usually very powerful to use Facebook Connect to allow a user to see another user's FB profile.
I've been recently involved in creating a site for sports meetups (like, say, for a casual game of tennis), and FB Connect came up pretty early on in our discussions as a way of getting people to trust each other.
Re: Craig Newmark on the Web’s Next Big Problem
#7Cafe Reverie FTW.
They have pretty good lunches - he's in the patio in back.
Re: Craig Newmark on the Web’s Next Big Problem
#8It's an interesting idea and I was with him until he said the government should be involved to enforce this. The government doesn't regulate any meaningful relationships in my life so why should it regulate who I decide to trust? Seems like a fantasy to even suggest that it could do so.
There might be something to it. I doubt he's thinking of a big brother scenario; he was referring to checks and balances. The government has a lot of information that would be useful about whom to trust and perhaps Craig was mostly thinking about government in a collaborative, information-sharing role.
But at first glance the thought of the government telling me whom to trust gives me the creeps, too.
Re: Craig Newmark on the Web’s Next Big Problem
#9It's an interesting idea and I was with him until he said the government should be involved to enforce this. The government doesn't regulate any meaningful relationships in my life so why should it regulate who I decide to trust? Seems like a fantasy to even suggest that it could do so.
I agree that government shouldn't take an active role in running the system, but protecting the system by preventing abuse seems like a good fit. Maybe something very similar to the way government enforces contracts.
Re: Craig Newmark on the Web’s Next Big Problem
#10It's an interesting idea and I was with him until he said the government should be involved to enforce this. The government doesn't regulate any meaningful relationships in my life so why should it regulate who I decide to trust? Seems like a fantasy to even suggest that it could do so.
Really? so you don't have any "meaningful relationships" that involve contracts, laws, things like that? You don't drive a car? Use a phone? Benefit from Police and Fire protection? Those things are all government regulated.
Really when you think about it, government has a lot to do right now with regulating trust. Think of how much more difficult trust between businesses would be if contracts didn't have the force of law? If disputes couldn't be settled in the courts?