Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative

#81

Post by brown9-2 »

sounddust wrote: post #71
p858snake wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A. Go to profile -> down to friends list -> click on the pencil -> Remove the tick in the box (Will still show mutual friends though) B. Change your privacy settings, Make it so you can only be found by searching certain things (eg: email address), Block your boss C. Unfortunately not (yet?)

A. Facebook has made it clear during the big "everyone" push that hiding your friends on your profile page is not the same thing as hiding it from public access; it is still considered public information by Facebook and can be accessed as such. B. Much of your personal data is still publicly available through Facebook Graph, regardless of how much you try to lock down your profile. It's only a matter of time before p…

B. Much of your personal data is still publicly available through Facebook Graph, regardless of how much you try to lock down your profile.

I don't think this is true, as an example here is what the graph API shows about my account:

  {
   "id": "800679",
   "name": "Matthew Brown",
   "first_name": "Matthew",
   "last_name": "Brown",
   "location": {
      "id": null,
      "name": null
   },
   "gender": "male"
  }
In the past I've had to go through all of the privacy settings painstakingly to make sure nothing is public, but I don't see how it can be said that you can't hide what you want from the public / graph API.

Re: Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative

#82

Post by mbrubeck »

thingie wrote: post #54
alanh wrote: post #26

> I’d like to make my friend list private. Cannot. > I’d like to have my profile visible only to my friends, not my boss. Cannot. > I’d like to support an anti-abortion group without my mother or the world knowing. Cannot. Great examples of what Facebook cannot do, and what the Facebook replacement must do.

I wonder how could any Facebook replacement (or Facebook itself) allow somebody to support some group while not telling anyone. Of course it's possible, donate some money, do some job for them, but… on Facebook or something like Facebook? How?

Facebook is also a way for groups to communicate with their supporters, plan private events, and let members locate each other. It would be useful for many groups to do that without broadcasting group membership.

Re: Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative

#83

Post by lukeqsee »

I am going to work on a new implementation of a facebook style website. Built on these core values: 1) User privacy 2) Data transferability 3) Open source software 4) Open API (for only that data that users allow, of course.)

I plan to do it in a Python web framework, most likely Django.

I know people have been discussing a distributed social network, but I don't see a market for that among the non-techies of the world. Just like they see XMPP as gMail chat (most of them), open standards mean nothing. Just look at openID, it simply can't gain much traction -- unless a flag carrier picks it up. Distributed social networking will simply splinter the arena till it's impossible for them to know "which one?"

For a new social network, the users want: 1) Simplicity. 2) Privacy. 3) Interaction. 4) Rich but intuitive interfaces.

I am making a call for any interested devs, shoot me an email. lukeseelenbinder the only webmail provider to use. :)

(If I should post this as a new post. Let me know. I'm a little new to HN)

Re: Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative

#84

Post by DanielRibeiro »

TheBurningOr wrote: post #52
DanielRibeiro wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good article. Reinforces some of the suggestions given on Facebook And Twitter Will Always Be Crappy Businesses http://bit.ly/cMiQLa

I think (hope) that Twitter has found (and realizes that it has found) a niche for itself in the 'what is happening now' part of the web. If they can focus on this, they might have a shot at becoming successfu.

I think the main difference between Twitter and Facebook is that the former is very clear at all times that all your data is public (by default), while the later is moving from a private to public data, in a not so clear way. But being more focused, Twitter does have an edge: it does not try to contain all data about your life, therefore, even if it sells your data, it doesn't really matter, as it was public already (buyers could just as easily use the API) and you don't have a lot of info about you anyway (unless you choose to do so).

Summing it up: would we even be having this conversation if Facebook, from day 1, started with defaulting all data as public, being clear about it, and making data securing hard to accomplish?

Re: Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative

#85

Post by BerislavLopac »

rmundo wrote: post #39

What I'd like is distributed p2p linking. No personal data on a server that isn't yours. Any of your data hosted on a third party site if you choose so, is encrypted to within an inch of its life: they can't do ANYTHING with it except forward it to whoever you designate. Venn diagrams for your social graph. Or trees. Preferably both. If Yelp/Microsoft/whoever wants my data, they become a member of my social graph, no…

I'm actually working on something like that, with one important difference: no personal data on a server, period. No servers at all. :)

Re: Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative

#86

Post by cookiecaper »

Todd wrote: post #38
cookiecaper wrote: post #16

I've been thinking about doing some kind of distributed/open social network thing what with all the Facebook scandals cropping up, but it's pretty hard to do. The fact is for something like Facebook to function smoothly, it has to be centralized. There has to be a server somewhere out there that can be queried reliably for this data and that's the bottom line, even if you have something API-based like OpenSocial. It'…

At first glance it seems nontrivial. As with most problems like this that can be decomposed into algorithms and datastructures, technology provides a solution. OpenID, OAuth, and Open Social were all developed to solve similar problems. My guess is that there will be half a dozen competing protocols within a year.

Right, and how successful are those protocols you've named? They all have relatively limited deployment and usage even though they've been around for years. OpenID is a nice idea but people don't want to remember a URL and a username and a password. People don't want to remember a "master URL" to give to each new social app they sign up for -- they want what Facebook gives; just sign up with a traditional username and password and start finding your friends immediately.

And, again, even then, if we follow the OpenID model of external providers, it's all about trusting that external provider with your data. There's still a central point with your data on it. There has to be. Unless the user is self-hosting this data, there is always a reliance on external entities. And how long could an external provider survive merely as a host for applications like Facebook, while not pulling in any revenue from Facebook's revenue channels like ads or Credits?

Re: Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative

#87

Post by cookiecaper »

rmundo wrote: post #39

What I'd like is distributed p2p linking. No personal data on a server that isn't yours. Any of your data hosted on a third party site if you choose so, is encrypted to within an inch of its life: they can't do ANYTHING with it except forward it to whoever you designate. Venn diagrams for your social graph. Or trees. Preferably both. If Yelp/Microsoft/whoever wants my data, they become a member of my social graph, no…

I have a comment further down mentioning the horrendous mess that a P2P architecture would present.

It would work for techies like us, but it wouldn't work for the segment that is making Facebook so transcendently popular. MySpace was a "teen" thing, others before it, too, but Facebook is mainstream; my grandma has a profile, my parents have profiles, and such is true of many.

Also mainstream is turning off your computer when you're not using it. Almost every non-techie I know is really interested in having their computer turned off. They don't really care about waiting for it to come back up. Telling them that their profile is only accessible while their computer is on is an instant killer. And what if their internet goes out? They're down for that time too. For people with spotty or wireless connections, saying "your profile will only work when your connection works, like 30% of the time", is not going to be too encouraging.

What if a user's hard drive dies? Do you really expect people like my 86-year-old grandmother to make backups of her social network profile frequently enough for it to be meaningful? Or what if a user just gets a new computer? Are they going to understand how to transfer the profile?

Making users download and run a P2P server 24/7 slows down the computer, increases personal connection bandwidth usage commensurate with one's popularity, and creates a big opening for scammers.

I know Facebook would be much less enjoyable if I had to sit around and wait for the dial-up AOL connections of the old people I know to upload their photos. Or even home broadband connections; in the US, those are usually capped at 60-70kbps upload, which is pretty slow.

How easy would it be to create a page that looks like your network's page and say "We've updated our client! This is a special update that we can't auto-update for these smart-sounding technical reasons, so please download and install it." People would do this immediately because social networks are a major part of their web usage; for some, the only reason they use computer. And your network would be poisoned and the users' profile disabled just that easily.

I just don't see how a P2P social network would gain mainstream appeal. What are your solutions to these problems?

Re: Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative

#88

Post by cookiecaper »

wmf wrote: post #27
cookiecaper wrote: post #16

I've been thinking about doing some kind of distributed/open social network thing what with all the Facebook scandals cropping up, but it's pretty hard to do. The fact is for something like Facebook to function smoothly, it has to be centralized. There has to be a server somewhere out there that can be queried reliably for this data and that's the bottom line, even if you have something API-based like OpenSocial. It'…

The fact is for something like Facebook to function smoothly, it has to be centralized. I hate to do this to you, but [citation needed]. for reasons all HN readers understand, [P2P] would be a huge, huge mess. Count me as one HN reader who does not understand that. (But then, it's hard to get someone to understand something if his ideology depends on not understanding it...)

I've explained a few obvious problems with a decentralized, P2P architecture here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1330382

Re: Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative

#89

Post by LiveTheDream »

sounddust wrote: post #71
p858snake wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A. Go to profile -> down to friends list -> click on the pencil -> Remove the tick in the box (Will still show mutual friends though) B. Change your privacy settings, Make it so you can only be found by searching certain things (eg: email address), Block your boss C. Unfortunately not (yet?)

A. Facebook has made it clear during the big "everyone" push that hiding your friends on your profile page is not the same thing as hiding it from public access; it is still considered public information by Facebook and can be accessed as such. B. Much of your personal data is still publicly available through Facebook Graph, regardless of how much you try to lock down your profile. It's only a matter of time before p…

How is your friend list still public information, if you set it to private? You are suggesting that the privacy settings don't actually do anything, which is inaccurate.

For example, if your friend list privacy is set to "Everyone", accessing your facebook page while logged out will show a random sample of your friends. Switch the privacy setting to "only friends" or something restrictive, return to the profile page in a logged out state, and note that your friends no longer are displayed.

Re: Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative

#90

Post by nkassis »

cookiecaper wrote: post #87
rmundo wrote: post #39

What I'd like is distributed p2p linking. No personal data on a server that isn't yours. Any of your data hosted on a third party site if you choose so, is encrypted to within an inch of its life: they can't do ANYTHING with it except forward it to whoever you designate. Venn diagrams for your social graph. Or trees. Preferably both. If Yelp/Microsoft/whoever wants my data, they become a member of my social graph, no…

I have a comment further down mentioning the horrendous mess that a P2P architecture would present. It would work for techies like us, but it wouldn't work for the segment that is making Facebook so transcendently popular. MySpace was a "teen" thing, others before it, too, but Facebook is mainstream; my grandma has a profile, my parents have profiles, and such is true of many. Also mainstream is turning off your comp…

I don't think anyone is suggesting self hosting of profiles, just to go from one provider to many providers. That would involve interoperability. The advantages of this are many, no service could just query one host and get all profiles that cross their path. A user would explicitly give pandora or Microsoft access to their profile by providing something like their email or some similar identifying string that could be tied back to the host of the profile.
Post reply on HN