It's Time for an Open Twitter
justinvincent.com
justinvincent.com
The issue is getting people to start using such a service.
I'm hopeful to see app.net take off, but have been unable to find any arguments/discussions talking about how app.net will succeed where DIASPORA failed.
(Ignoring the obvious of having a better name, of course!)
Coupled with a lot of negative sentiments that Twitter users and developers feel might make it an interesting story in the tech press. Diaspora had a lot of press when they first started but they couldn't live up to the promise.
In this case it would be easier to live up to the promise because most of the client code already exists. It would largely be a case of clients adding new endpoints to the frontend and abstracting the rendering functions.
It would also be super easy for users to import their Twitter profile into a new system. Just enter a Twitter username and you could easily get the bio & avatar. Very low cost of transfer. If the press pushed it, and it was so easy to move over, it would have a chance IMHO.
I should also point out I don't think app.net has this opportunity, I think it could only happen for a truly free non-profit system.
In this very same thread people are mentioning that an open, distributed system is needed or that they'Will contribute by code and kind'.
And identi.ca is not even mentioned in the article.
Disclaimer: Im not trying to be offensive through other posters. They may simply not know about identi.ca. But that proves my point even more. Twitter and app.net have been discussed so much in the past few weeks. Identi.ca barely got any attention.
This is like saying Wordpress.com is the alternative to Blogger. The alternative is the software which runs the site.
Most importantly, this software needs to speak a standardized protocol. Luckily, this protocol exists -- it is called OStatus.
Why does nobody seem to think of this?
However, the actual answers are 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Potentially 4. Yes 5. Potentially
Instead of having central aggregation, the free market would drive sites aggregating users messages to improve their features. You could sign up by just adding the site to your list.
Of course, it would require some work and a draft standard. I'm not saying it's perfect. Apparently identi.ca has a federation system too.
Also check out buddycloud (.com / .org)
The idea of it being a single non profit site seems terrible in comparison.
In order to be successful, what this space really needs is a de facto server, like Sendmail, but one that's easy to set up and configure. Over time, this would make it possible to have a critical mass of compatible servers that speak the same set of XEP extensions. There are many open source XMPP servers. I think one reason this hasn't happened already is that most of them are difficult to set up and configure.
Centralization has it's benefits, and they could be maintained without all the crap that's happening with twitter right now.
http://www.thimbl.net/faq.html "Isn't this just like identi.ca/ostatus.net?
The similarity is only superficial, in that we draw upon similarities with web2.0 platforms in how we communicate our use-case.
Diaspora, Crabgrass, NoseRub, StatusNet, identi.ca and the rest are just web-apps with some sort of federation bolted-on. None of them are truly distributed multi-tier systems like the classic internet applications such as email, usenet, irc, or finger. Thimbl, on the other hand, is just a finger & SSH client that illustrates that "microblogging" has already been possible on the internet for decades. It's done by simply presenting the data differently and making it look like the now-familiar Twitter interface. You don't need anything from the Thimbl project running on your server to participate in Thimbl, just the software that is already in your repository - namely SSH and xinetd/finger or compatible alternatives."
The number of people that care about why Diaspora exists and why a Twitter clone in the same vein would exist is extremely small. Small userbase means the service is basically dead on arrival.
https://twitter.com/mickeyc/status/236796994532827136
and a lot of disaspora's momentum was destroyed by their early security issues (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, I wasn't following diaspora that closely at the time).
Remember that as soon as even a few distributed or open systems get going they can be linked together. At that point any new competitors to FB/twitter have a strong incentive to be open as well because it gives them that precious starting network. Then, like good guerillas, you engage the centralized service in a drawn out struggle. They have to win every time, because as soon as their userbase slips it's never coming back. You only have to win once. (You can lose unlimited companies/protocols as long as more and better ones are taking their place)
EDIT: P.S. I totally stole this strategy from a Pournelle book (Prince of Sparta). "We Helots be coming back for more. Again . . . and again . . . and again." Just because they're the bad guys doesn't mean we can't use their tactics!
Twitter's "protocol" is not a protocol but an API that runs on top of HTTP and they created it. The ONLY responsibility Twitter has as a corporation is to do whatever it takes to make the largest profit. If it failed at this, it would actually be in violation of the law as that is the purpose of a corporation.
The world isn't entitled to anything Twitter builds.
And that's not Twitter irresponsibility; its responsibility is to do whatever its owners want it to, following the law. Especially since it's a private company, not a public one.
The world isn't entitled to anything Twitter builds.
Nobody says it is. The article is saying that Twitter is not entitled to be the sole mechanism for distributing Twit-like messages, and that we should build and use a different one.
>> Nobody says it is.
I would say the choice of wording by the OP suggests otherwise.
From the OP:
>> Twitter has the power to topple regimes, but by following advertising dollars they are building a walled garden and making anti-competative (link to: http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2012/08/17/twitter-4/) decisions.
If I'm not mistaken, the OP characterizes Twitter's imposing of developer unfriendly guidelines as anti-competitive, which it is not. If Twitter was being anti-competitive, they would be preventing competing platforms like App.Net from existing - and that's not what's happening. Limiting what is essentially a "free ride" is not anticompetitive.
From the same paragraph:
>> It does not bode well for our world that such a commercially driven company should wield so much power and be the epicenter of global conversation.
As far as I know, all companies are commercially driven. Twitter wields power because people like to use it. But so does Facebook. That the author tried to "build a business on Twitter’s platform for the past 3 years" and then be upset by Twitter's change of heart suggests a little sour grapes on his part.
Further:
>> Dalton Caldwell has an interesting idea, but I don’t think it will end the Twitter monopoly
While Twitter is the market leader, it does not have a monopoly on "status updates". The last time I checked my Facebook feed, it was full of the same type of updates that Twitter provides, and Facebook is pretty popular. Google+ is also a well funded competitor to Twitter.
I don't see how such characterization, accurate or not, mean that OP says the world is entitled to what Twitter builds.
As far as I know, all companies are commercially driven.
Firstly, I still don't see how does that tie to my post. I wasn't making an apology of the article. That said, OP did use a qualifier ("such"). I'd claim that there are less commercially driven companies, e.g. Canonical.
Twitter wields power because people like to use it.
People like to use Gmail too, but if they kick you out, you can still communicate with everyone there. Twitter wields power because it's a locked-in system.
But so does Facebook.
So?
That the author tried to "build a business on Twitter’s platform for the past 3 years" and then be upset by Twitter's change of heart suggests a little sour grapes on his part.
That's called an ad-hominem fallacy. The fact that he may be pissed does not make him wrong.
While Twitter is the market leader, it does not have a monopoly on "status updates". The last time I checked my Facebook feed, it was full of the same type of updates that Twitter provides, and Facebook is pretty popular. Google+ is also a well funded competitor to Twitter.
Again, I fail to see how is this related to my post.
So to requote your original post.
>> >> The world isn't entitled to anything Twitter builds.
>> Nobody says it is.
Let me put it more succinctly. My interpretation is that the OP is basically saying that the world is entitled to anything Twitter builds.
My subsequent quotes weren't so much related to rebutting you but to highlight the parts of the OP that I felt supported my point.