Live data from Hacker News

Twitter funding a team to develop an open standard for social media

twitter.com

321–330 of 426 posts

Re: Twitter funding a team to develop an open standard for social media

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If unlike Facebook, they can share blame with other actors, they won't singlehandedly be responsible for political mayhem, so there won't be calls to break up Twitter. I don't buy this. Nothing is going to change from the user perspective, and almost nobody in the grand scheme of things will likely be aware of this open standard anyway, let alone people working in government. I don't see how this will change the pu…

Maybe I misunderstand the scope of the technical details, but if the underlying flow of messages across social media was forcibly abstracted to a universal master hub, then could not individual clients (or sub-platforms) not then exert control over capabilities (filtering, censorship, etc) that is currently controlled entirely by the individual social media platforms who own the networks and userbase ? > and almost n…

> Although, I could easily agree that this is simply a disingenuous smokescreen to buy time and mitigate legislative risks. In fact, I'd bet money on it.

To be clear, this is roughly what I'm arguing. In theory, I openly welcome Twitter and Facebook adopting an open standard and giving users the option of easily moving their content to another service, but I don't think it will pan out that way in practice due to the current state of affairs. For one, brand recognition is very powerful, and I think Twitter knows this and is banking on momentum keeping users on their platform regardless of the technical ability to move to another service. Also, most people simply won't understand the implications of this standard or why they should care. ("Why would I use XYZ when I can just use Twitter/Facebook?")

Re: Twitter funding a team to develop an open standard for social media

#322
post #281

I operate an open source standard called Shareable Tweets http://2fb.me A service designed to get tweets to a larger audience. But Twitter banned the account that was working to put this standard into practice @shareU Ironically Twitter has been, historically; the most restrictive force in social media.

MCC did a great job bringing up Twitter's awful record on open APIs in a reply: https://twitter.com/mcclure111/status/1204807272226082817 While I'm all for open standards and protocols, Twitter has proven itself hostile to 3rd party developers. Even if their proposals are good Twitter has a long way to go to prove themselves trustworthy participants in open networks.

Yes exactly, instead of being open they’ve consistently shut the doors. You have no idea the lengths I’ve been through to keep that service up. In fact the technology decisions by the guy charged with leading this effort (CTO) have been more restrictive as of late not less. For example the web UI is now totally obfuscated server rendered code in effect nullifying any chrome extension that wants to work on top of it.

If anyone is interested I wrote a piece about democratizing social media https://medium.com/@shareU/we-built-this-city-2cb97437942f

Re: Twitter funding a team to develop an open standard for social media

#323

They should at the very least evaluate ActivityPub. It's a W3C standard that reached "Recommended" status almost two years ago, is flexible enough for future use-cases, and already has multiple implementations like Mastodon. In fact, any app can be made to act as a source, sink or both of ActivityPub events. I recently added ActivityPub support to learnawesome.org so that reviews can be consumed in any ActivityPub cl…

Three reasons why not: operational, business, and technical. Operational: they don’t control features; adding them by contributing to the standard would leak planned features, and without contributing, would be seen as embrace-extend-extinguish. Business: it would contribute work to their competitors. Technical: implementing global search on it is implausible.

Just like implementing global search across all websites is impossible

Re: Twitter funding a team to develop an open standard for social media

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three reasons why not: operational, business, and technical. Operational: they don’t control features; adding them by contributing to the standard would leak planned features, and without contributing, would be seen as embrace-extend-extinguish. Business: it would contribute work to their competitors. Technical: implementing global search on it is implausible.

Just like implementing global search across all websites is impossible

To be fair there is no open standard for global search across all websites.

Re: Twitter funding a team to develop an open standard for social media

#325
post #320

Twitter and Facebook and Google and others share one common concern that, if addressed, would see their staffing budgets massively reduced (and thus profits increased): Human moderators. Each grudgingly uses human moderators to squash the worst of the problems on their platform, and does a terrible job of it. Each underspends on human beings, using contractors without sufficient mental health care to ensure their wel…

Microsoft and Gmail make a lot of money from the email protocol, despite the fact that they don't moderate it. Is this immoral?

I wouldn’t know, that question is apples and oranges different.

Twitter is creating a syndicated public one-to-all feed system; Email is a syndicated private one-to-many feed system. The public/private difference cannot be discarded and makes your question unrelated to my statement.

I encourage you to pursue a top-level thread about your concern instead, so that it’s not disregarded as a reply to mine.

Re: Twitter funding a team to develop an open standard for social media

#326
post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree; commercial services prefer to use their own protocol over a common protocol for technical and commercial reasons. For example XMPP is a federated messaging protocol but Facebook Chat moved off XMPP, AOL AIM moved off XMPP, Google Talk moved of XMPP., even Twitter moved off XMPP at one point, because they all implemented custom features and eventually devolve from the base protocol.

I read this as a trivial 'truth' that I've internalized myself as well; but the way you worded it... makes me naively ask: doesn't it speak to the limitations or choices of XMPP itself then, not the idea of a common protocol, if businesses can't reliably extend the protocol (only custom fork, and somehow barring eventual upstream contrib, whatever)? I can think of an extensible protocol paradigm, with 'extensions' (r…

I actually don't think it has anything to do with technology or problems with XMPP. Corporations can move standards better than anyone (look at web and chrome/google). If Google and Facebook had scale problems then they would just build better implementation.

Facebook messages happened when FB didn't have so many users and in chat space there were XMPP services like ICQ/Jabber. Network effect was against FB so it made lot of sense to federate. When FB was convinced that by killing federation more people come to FB instead of leaving they just pulled the plug.

I am sure that if 80% of email users were using gmail Google would do the same thing. There is a chance of that happening... First gmail adds some amazing but nonstandard features, people start relying on those features and in time gmail becomes the one. Only thing thats keeping that from happening is actually other big businesses.

Re: Twitter funding a team to develop an open standard for social media

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others have better responses to the rest of these points; many of them are still significant issues though a lot has progressed over the last couple years. I can preempt one though by saying alternatives to Synapse like https://github.com/matrix-construct/construct are probably something more aligned with your interests. (disclosure: I started the project with kaniini). After more than two years in and around this sp…

> I'd take Matrix with all^wmost its flaws over ActivityPub protocol-wise, which flaws are currently the most egregious from your pov? (i.e. `all - most = ?`) (And if any are security issues, please chuck them to security@)

I'll just pick one. Matrix is resource-heavy, even in the best of times. There is a confluence of smaller contributing factors, and several effects on both its usability and developer/platform friendliness. Consider this anecdote of the overhead of sending the message "hi" as a baseline: in Matrix, this takes about 1KiB on average after all is said and done in JSON (and varies, unfavorably). So to over-simplify, that's 1K to the disk, 1K to each server in the chatroom, for which there could be several hundred, and 1K read on query from clients and other servers -- all for a 2 byte payload.

Before I'm accused of being unfair because there's always going to be a ridiculous ratio for something like a "hi" message, consider some alternatives for both the format and payloads of the fundamental protocol primitives. Most of the messages contain cryptographic metadata which has a succinct binary representation, but JSON requires base64; when represented naturally with CBOR the overhead can be reduced ~40%, and without encoding/decoding either. Consider that virtually all of the overhead in "hi" is either cryptographic hashes or signatures or integers (depth/ts) which would benefit from compact formats.

Does representation actually matter though? Why can't I just store Matrix in my format and federate with your format? I guess this is an example of where theory and reality collide. One cannot write a server which handles messages as abstractly as possible (leveraging these JSON/CBOR extensible formats) while at the same time knowing which fields have a more efficient binary representation and transforming that. In reality that just looks like a CBOR message with a bunch of base64 plaintext strings. It doesn't achieve that 40%.

All of this is important because of Matrix's (superior) design over its event abstraction. When the whole protocol is hinged on fundamental primitives (a good thing) attention to detail and focus must be given to those primitives. The more optimized they are, the more everything built with them is also optimized. When the foundation is efficient, developers can do more with matrix and enrich the user experience. For another example, matrix has been reluctant to give developers the power to store shared-program (i.e bot) state efficiently in a chat room. This is because there's no mechanism to delete state_keys, or even discard overwritten state itself. That's an important cornerstone that's missing while the rest of the tower is being piled on.

It might be possible to confuse any of these issues as trivialities, and their solutions as bike-shedding. I contest their importance is evident in how they emerge to shape the character of the entire system. Consider: does matrix require the entire DAG to be acquired like a bitcoin block-chain? Then I better be careful and conservative about messages. Does matrix allow gaps in the DAG and have a smaller chain for auth? Then I can be liberal about messages and delete stuff later. When I go to build an application which communicates over Matrix those qualities emerge as fundamental limitations or liberations of what users can experience.

Re: Twitter funding a team to develop an open standard for social media

#328
post #77
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mastodon isn't decentralized, it's federated, and ActivityPub is a terrible protocol (that Mastodon frequently disobeys).

The terminology I've most commonly seen used is this: Centralized = One central system runs everything (i.e. Twitter, Facebook) Decentralized = Multiple central systems run everything, but they talk to each other and you can build your own (i.e. email, Mastodon/ActivityPub) Distributed = No central system at all (i.e. Bitcoin)

> Distributed = No central system at all

I can have a single non-distributed computer system and have that single computer be decentralized by having the programs it runs be done through achieving consensus. Your definitions are a bit off because Mastadon and Bitcoin are both distributed and decentralized systems.

Re: Twitter funding a team to develop an open standard for social media

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three reasons why not: operational, business, and technical. Operational: they don’t control features; adding them by contributing to the standard would leak planned features, and without contributing, would be seen as embrace-extend-extinguish. Business: it would contribute work to their competitors. Technical: implementing global search on it is implausible.

This is doomed from the start, then. There’s no way for them to work on an open standard without leaking features or contributing work to their competitors.

As long they are the gatekeepers for the standard, they absolutely can keep new features private
Post reply on HN