Otherwise, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_techn... for a general discussion.
Except, of course, running, maintaining and developing the thing, all of which are quite earthly.
> And it's a perfect example of a service that should be decentralized by design.
Except that would make it an order or two of magnitude more complicated, but that's irrelevant next to random people on the Internet armchair quarterbacking. And, of course, procuring a server and installing a node on it is much, much easier than just signing up on a website and inviting your neighbors. It's the perfect example, I can't think of any reason why they didn't do it that way. Oh, of course, advertising. That's it. Sorry, never mind me.
Also, in a decentralised network, it may be even harder to keep control over data. Example: It is easier to hold Google accountable for data in their servers than users of BitTorrent for their data.
But there's no point in showing ads in a decentralized network since the proceeds would belong to no one. Unless someone controls the client application/interface, but then it's not entirely decentralized.
There is a difference between "track you and show you ads" and just "show you ads." A print newspaper can show you ads.
> Example: It is easier to hold Google accountable for data in their servers than users of BitTorrent for their data.
Not really. If Google or Facebook has your data but your "friends" have access to it, your friends also have your data. They can copy it and keep it indefinitely. Removing the middle man doesn't reduce your own control, it only removes the middle man's control.
> There is a difference between "track you and show you ads" and just "show you ads." A print newspaper can show you ads.
And a federation of networks can get together and decide to share what data they have about you with each other.
> Not really. If Google or Facebook has your data but your "friends" have access to it, your friends also have your data. They can copy it and keep it indefinitely. Removing the middle man doesn't reduce your own control, it only removes the middle man's control.
Could you clarify this? I'm really not sure what you mean, sorry.
Federation means competition. You can choose providers you trust and who agree not to do that. Or you can run your own, which in a properly designed system shouldn't require more than some free software, a domain name and a machine to point it at. Which ordinary people might buy off the shelf as an appliance that plugs into your modem.
> Could you clarify this? I'm really not sure what you mean, sorry.
OK, so right now you have a funny cat video, so you upload it to YouTube and then post the link on Facebook. So Facebook can tell who you've shared the link with and who has clicked on it, YouTube can tell what you've uploaded and who has watched it, and anyone you've shared it with (or, in the absence of authentication, anyone in the world) can download it and save a copy on their hard drive.
In the alternative, you upload the funny cat video to some distributed CDN thing like Freenet or BitTorrent, and then your friends get the link in something that resembles an RSS reader that gets its feeds from something that distributes messages how email does.
So anyone you've shared the video with can still download it and keep it but there is nobody who has the complete list of everyone you've shared it with and there is no third party middle man who can keep track of everyone who is looking at it.
Whoever is doing the uploading can still tell who is downloading but presumably these are your friends who are not keeping permanent records rather than some corporation bent on converting every aspect of your personality into a data set for selling hotdogs and health insurance.
Should it ever grow big enough IETF, W3C, ECMA, ITU, ISO and the likes might be appropriate maintainers (depending on the details).
See SMTP, XMPP which are both federated.
That SMTP and XMPP exist are just more proof for the value of Facebook (and to be clear: I hate FB and don't have an account, but I still see that it has value). SMTP has massive amounts of users, likely more than FB, and yet FB still exists because SMTP . XMPP is a good protocol, and yet no one is using it because federation makes it too hard for these things to work in the market.
The idea with federated systems is that the standard body isn't _running_ the network. So no, I wouldn't expect W3C to run a social network, federated or not. Their own node, maybe.
However the sign up process for NextDoor seems hard, so friction might not be a good reason. It might be hard to keep sign up rigorous without a central vetting body though.
It's a little more complicated if you're billing addr is not your home addr (and you don't want to put in your credit card), but my guess would be that phone-number verification works in the 95% general case. Given how quick and easy sign-up is, I'd imagine that the friction argument is still rather relevant.
EDIT: Doesn't seem to work with my T-Mobile cellphone, so I'm guessing they have some arrangement with like some cell carriers?