Tim Berners-Lee says Facebook is a trap(news.bioscholar.com)
news.bioscholar.com
Tim Berners-Lee says Facebook is a trap
http://news.bioscholar.com/2010/11/web-founder-says-facebook-is-a-trap.html
22 comments
> I can't think of anything else I really miss out on from Fb.
I can't tell if you've left Facebook and feel these solutions replace it, or if you've just read the list of features, and decided you're covered. What you're missing: The aggregated, passive flow of opportunities to stay in touch.
I occasionally have short conversations with people I haven't seen for a decade, prompted by something either I or they posted. It's nothing deep and profound, but it feels good to stay in touch.
If I just put pictures and news on my blog or flickr, I would be relying on hundreds of acquaintances from the past 15 year to regularly visit these places - and why would they do that?
I can't tell if you've left Facebook and feel these solutions replace it, or if you've just read the list of features, and decided you're covered. What you're missing: The aggregated, passive flow of opportunities to stay in touch.
I occasionally have short conversations with people I haven't seen for a decade, prompted by something either I or they posted. It's nothing deep and profound, but it feels good to stay in touch.
If I just put pictures and news on my blog or flickr, I would be relying on hundreds of acquaintances from the past 15 year to regularly visit these places - and why would they do that?
> I can't tell if you've left Facebook and feel these solutions replace it, or if you've just read the list of features, and decided you're covered.
I've got an Fb account, and I do use it lightly. I tend to have random conversations with people because of posts they make on twitter, or on their blogs.
I do watch my Fb news feed on my phone, so if I spot something worth starting up a conversation about I have the opportunity to.
My discomfort with Fb is that to even view content requires an account. Content is only shared amongst account holders. If I post some photos, or an event I don't want to require people to sign up to Fb to view that content. Hence I post my content on more open services. My concern is more for the other people who don't use Fb than it is for myself or those who already use Fb.
If I post content on a blog, I sometimes post a link on Fb. I don't see any problem with that. Some people choose to follow me via Fb, and that is fine, but I also want to remain open to those people who don't like Fb and I give them the option to follow me in other ways.
I've got an Fb account, and I do use it lightly. I tend to have random conversations with people because of posts they make on twitter, or on their blogs.
I do watch my Fb news feed on my phone, so if I spot something worth starting up a conversation about I have the opportunity to.
My discomfort with Fb is that to even view content requires an account. Content is only shared amongst account holders. If I post some photos, or an event I don't want to require people to sign up to Fb to view that content. Hence I post my content on more open services. My concern is more for the other people who don't use Fb than it is for myself or those who already use Fb.
If I post content on a blog, I sometimes post a link on Fb. I don't see any problem with that. Some people choose to follow me via Fb, and that is fine, but I also want to remain open to those people who don't like Fb and I give them the option to follow me in other ways.
That's fine (and not terribly different from how I use Facebook and other stuff, actually). But then your question becomes "What do I really miss out on for not using Facebook exclusively?" to which the answer is "Absolutely nothing. kthxbye."
But who really needs "aggregated, passive flow of opportunities to stay in touch?"
These are proxy relationships. Friends are welcome to call me, but I don't want to be involved in their lives 24/7, nor do I want the opportunity.
These are proxy relationships. Friends are welcome to call me, but I don't want to be involved in their lives 24/7, nor do I want the opportunity.
Well, if "do we really need this" was a viable yardstick for the value of innovation, nothing significant would have been invented in the past 100 years.
And telling me that the relationships I have on Facebook are worth less that not having them at all because they are on Facebook rather than on the phone(x) is incredibly arrogant and, well, none of your business.
(x) Never mind that they would have significant trouble reaching me using any of the 1998 contact information they have on me. Except for my name, which happens to be fairly unique, none of it is valid today, nor was it already by 2000.
And telling me that the relationships I have on Facebook are worth less that not having them at all because they are on Facebook rather than on the phone(x) is incredibly arrogant and, well, none of your business.
(x) Never mind that they would have significant trouble reaching me using any of the 1998 contact information they have on me. Except for my name, which happens to be fairly unique, none of it is valid today, nor was it already by 2000.
I never said it was. However, you're implying that other solutions missing this means that they are not valuable or effective, which is just as wrong. It's purely subjective.
I'm not talking about your relationships either...I could care less. That's my point. Facebook is what it is, but just because it's popular does not mean it's necessary.
I'm not talking about your relationships either...I could care less. That's my point. Facebook is what it is, but just because it's popular does not mean it's necessary.
The only `necessary` things are family, shelter, clothes, food, water and transportation. Yahoo and Bing are fine replacements for google even if the latter is more popular. What is your point?
His point is in line 1: "However, you're implying that other solutions missing this means that they are not valuable or effective, which is just as wrong. It's purely subjective."
Let me know when your friend invites you to a party on Facebook and you get it via Google Calendar. I'll be the guy by the bar while you're at home. Your friends couldn't care less what an .ics is.
My mom doesn't care about "openness". She cares what I put on my Facebook wall.
Photo alternative: cute. I'll never go to your Flickr page. I've seen ~100 pictures today of Thanksgiving celebrations, because they were in my News Feed.
Messages: Most of my FB messagers are spam, but what do you think is the easiest way to message a 14-year-old?
My mom doesn't care about "openness". She cares what I put on my Facebook wall.
Photo alternative: cute. I'll never go to your Flickr page. I've seen ~100 pictures today of Thanksgiving celebrations, because they were in my News Feed.
Messages: Most of my FB messagers are spam, but what do you think is the easiest way to message a 14-year-old?
Maybe my social circle is just old fashioned, but my friends and family actually care whether I come to their events. That means that they have means other than Facebook to contact me with, since I'm not on the site. Maybe your mom would just stop communicating with you if you weren't on Facebook, though; I don't pretend to know what your situation is like.
You're not missing out on the quality of the tools. You're missing out on connectivity. Some people can't be accessed without Facebook. The quantity of those people is growing.
> Some people can't be accessed without Facebook.
That means that the people who cant be accessed without facebook had to voluntarily cut themselves off from email-only people first. And while doing that, they had no concerns that they will be missing connectivity, because from their POV the email-only people obviously had such a low social rank anyway, that they simply could afford to sorta blackmail them ("either you get a facebook account or I'll simply cut you off.") without any fear they could be losing anything of (social) worth.
Getting a facebook (or MySpace/ICQ/MSN/AIM/YIM/whatever 1-vendor-only proprietary network) account just because someone forces you to do it is a way to confess to yourself that you must have be pretty low in the pecking order in your desired social circle and that involuntarily creating accounts with service-de-jour wont be the last thing you'll be forced to do to avoid being cut off. Or, alternatively, just get real friends.
That means that the people who cant be accessed without facebook had to voluntarily cut themselves off from email-only people first. And while doing that, they had no concerns that they will be missing connectivity, because from their POV the email-only people obviously had such a low social rank anyway, that they simply could afford to sorta blackmail them ("either you get a facebook account or I'll simply cut you off.") without any fear they could be losing anything of (social) worth.
Getting a facebook (or MySpace/ICQ/MSN/AIM/YIM/whatever 1-vendor-only proprietary network) account just because someone forces you to do it is a way to confess to yourself that you must have be pretty low in the pecking order in your desired social circle and that involuntarily creating accounts with service-de-jour wont be the last thing you'll be forced to do to avoid being cut off. Or, alternatively, just get real friends.
Everyone has an e-mail address (it's a requirement to be able to create a Facebook account) and pretty much everyone is on one of the IM networks.
My teenage son regards email and IM as something old people use. Of course, this was until Facebook added email features and suddenly it's OK to be seen using it.
FYI: Its possible to get a FB account without a "real" email address. ie Use a one-time address like 10 minute mail. I've had an account for about 2 years with this method, never been a problem
> pretty much everyone is on one of the IM networks.
I know a lot of people who have ditched their previous IM accounts in favour of the Fb IM platform.
I know a lot of people who have ditched their previous IM accounts in favour of the Fb IM platform.
Tim doesn't look at just the present state but at the trend. Other posters have noted that many people abandon or don't see the use for IM or email when they use Facebook to communicate.
If people stop following their email or logging in to their IM because they communicate using Facebook, it could change quickly.
If people stop following their email or logging in to their IM because they communicate using Facebook, it could change quickly.
I do have a Facebook account. I just choose to ensure that my content is published publicly so others who don't have an account can still access it.
Google calendar for events - there is a lock-in and user training problem though. Some people I invited to a party couple years ago couldn't figure out how to accept my Google calendar invite (by clicking link in the email), same people not only manage to accept FB invites, but even capable of creating event of their own. I use FB for invites since this accident.
I think that Berners-Lee and W3C get way too much credit for the web. And this is an incredibly arrogant statement by Mr. Berners-Lee.
Facebook has in-fact done some serious web innovation the last years and W3C has completely dropped the ball. Facebook and Twitter have been catalyzing internet adoption and the general spread of information.
Mr. Berners-Lee's obsession about content-silos shows that there is a serious disconnect between the current state of the web and W3C. The web was about content and documents fifteen years ago, now it's about the flow of data.
I know Berners-Lee is a big Linked Data advocate, but the approach that's being taken by the W3C is painfully slow and doesn't take into account the fluidity of information.
This is one of the reasons why developers (and even semantic web developers) have resorted to non-W3C technologies more and more: JSON, Javascript-wrappers, Webkit, client-side routing, non-REST HTTP requests, IOSockets/Coment, streaming apis, etc.
The web is emergent and out of control. Deal with it. Technologies and tools compete for attention and adoption. You snooze, you lose.
As for the 'content silos': Are you fucking kidding me? 'Content' being stuck in Facebook is not going to happen, in fact, the content is going to flow more and more. If you mark something as 'only my friends can see this', it will leak. Don't want to be tagged in a picture? Well, you have no choice. Face recognition will get you soon.
The internet, thanks to social web, is a giant copy machine. There's a huge shitstream of content and your attention and the activity around it is the thing that matters. Who cares about the damn content.
So maybe it's time for the 'Web Founder' and the W3 Web Museum to roll up their sleeves and do something, instead of bitch about the companies that actually advance the web.
So instead of bitching about the companies and people that actually advance the web and change the world, maybe it's time for the 'Web Founder' and the Web Museum to roll up their sleeves and do something...
Facebook has in-fact done some serious web innovation the last years and W3C has completely dropped the ball. Facebook and Twitter have been catalyzing internet adoption and the general spread of information.
Mr. Berners-Lee's obsession about content-silos shows that there is a serious disconnect between the current state of the web and W3C. The web was about content and documents fifteen years ago, now it's about the flow of data.
I know Berners-Lee is a big Linked Data advocate, but the approach that's being taken by the W3C is painfully slow and doesn't take into account the fluidity of information.
This is one of the reasons why developers (and even semantic web developers) have resorted to non-W3C technologies more and more: JSON, Javascript-wrappers, Webkit, client-side routing, non-REST HTTP requests, IOSockets/Coment, streaming apis, etc.
The web is emergent and out of control. Deal with it. Technologies and tools compete for attention and adoption. You snooze, you lose.
As for the 'content silos': Are you fucking kidding me? 'Content' being stuck in Facebook is not going to happen, in fact, the content is going to flow more and more. If you mark something as 'only my friends can see this', it will leak. Don't want to be tagged in a picture? Well, you have no choice. Face recognition will get you soon.
The internet, thanks to social web, is a giant copy machine. There's a huge shitstream of content and your attention and the activity around it is the thing that matters. Who cares about the damn content.
So maybe it's time for the 'Web Founder' and the W3 Web Museum to roll up their sleeves and do something, instead of bitch about the companies that actually advance the web.
So instead of bitching about the companies and people that actually advance the web and change the world, maybe it's time for the 'Web Founder' and the Web Museum to roll up their sleeves and do something...
> I think that Berners-Lee and W3C get way too much credit for the web. And this is an incredibly arrogant statement by
Mr. Berners-Lee.
I also think that green is a totally awesome color, and that we can breed birds with horses to produce pegasii. For more attacks on the W3C at best tangential to Mr. Berners-Lee's actual essay, read on.
> Facebook has in-fact done some serious web innovation the last years and W3C has completely dropped the ball. Facebook and Twitter have been catalyzing internet adoption and the general spread of information.
I'll conveniently ignore companies like Flickr, who innovate without compromising data portability: http://laughingmeme.org/2010/05/18/minimal-competence-data-a...
> Mr. Berners-Lee's obsession about content-silos shows that there is a serious disconnect between the current state of the web and W3C. The web was about content and documents fifteen years ago, now it's about the flow of data.
Those URI thingamabobs that send you to content or documents? The web isn't about that anymore. It's about a golden shower of data, flowing down the firehose. You see, when people look up stuff on Wikipedia, they don't care about the page they're on, but the activity data on who's flowing in and out of it.
> I know Berners-Lee is a big Linked Data advocate, but the approach that's being taken by the W3C is painfully slow and doesn't take into account the fluidity of information.
See I took "flow of data" from my previous paragraph, applied my nifty FaceTwit thesaurus to it, and turned up "fluidity of information". More of my fluids to come.
> This is one of the reasons why developers (and even semantic web developers) have resorted to non-W3C technologies more and more: JSON, Javascript-wrappers, Webkit, client-side routing, non-REST HTTP requests, IOSockets/Coment, streaming apis, etc.
Look at me! I'm namedropping web technologies more than hip-hop artists namedrop the Notorious B.I.G or Tupac. I can do this all day: XML Servlet configotrons. Buffered packet gumballs. NoSQL big data Hadoopian piglets mashed up with tagsoup gravy. Activity ICMP hosepipe of RSS-killa sauce.
Pay special attention to my mention of non-REST HTTP requests. You see, REST HTTP requests are a W3C technology. But non-REST HTTP requests? That's not W3C, that's those innovative guys down the hall, second room to the right.
> The web is emergent and out of control. Deal with it. Technologies and tools compete for attention and adoption. You snooze, you lose.
Now I switch from my awesome web developer hat to my social media evangelist hat. This paragraph is not only a segue, it also panders to those of you playing buzzword bingo!
> As for the 'content silos': Are you fucking kidding me? 'Content' being stuck in Facebook is not going to happen, in fact, the content is going to flow more and more. If you mark something as 'only my friends can see this', it will leak. Don't want to be tagged in a picture? Well, you have no choice. Face recognition will get you soon.
I mentioned flow of data previously. But now it's the content that's flowing. The ultra-innovative internet catalyzer Facebook won't be able to keep your data private. Why? Because I say so, that's why.
> The internet, thanks to social web, is a giant copy machine. There's a huge shitstream of content and your attention and the activity around it is the thing that matters. Who cares about the damn content.
Want to know the internet's secret? No one watches Youtube videos. No one shares links to content on Twitter and Facebook. They just look at the activity around it. In fact, if my pal Tim BL didn't write this _content_, I'd still have some activity to do! Furious activity in fact, in the privacy of my room while penning my next ode to Facebook and Twitter.
Btw if you haven't been keeping up on my use of liquids, we've gone from flow to fluidity to shitstream. Which mirrors the general coherence of this comment.
> So maybe it's time for the 'Web Founder' and the W3 Web Museum to roll up their sleeves and do something, instead of bitch about the companies that actually advance the web.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, and the other _companies_ that are members of the World Wide Web _Consortium_ better start rolling up their sleeves. They aren't doing anything to advance the internet.
> So instead of bitching about the companies and people that actually advance the web and change the world, maybe it's time for the 'Web Founder' and the Web Museum to roll up their sleeves and do something...
That last paragraph was so good, I'ma say it twice while flipping the order of my sentence. That's activity, you see. With activity, you can copypasta content, because no one cares about content anymore. And now that I have proven my point, my point is proven.
I also think that green is a totally awesome color, and that we can breed birds with horses to produce pegasii. For more attacks on the W3C at best tangential to Mr. Berners-Lee's actual essay, read on.
> Facebook has in-fact done some serious web innovation the last years and W3C has completely dropped the ball. Facebook and Twitter have been catalyzing internet adoption and the general spread of information.
I'll conveniently ignore companies like Flickr, who innovate without compromising data portability: http://laughingmeme.org/2010/05/18/minimal-competence-data-a...
> Mr. Berners-Lee's obsession about content-silos shows that there is a serious disconnect between the current state of the web and W3C. The web was about content and documents fifteen years ago, now it's about the flow of data.
Those URI thingamabobs that send you to content or documents? The web isn't about that anymore. It's about a golden shower of data, flowing down the firehose. You see, when people look up stuff on Wikipedia, they don't care about the page they're on, but the activity data on who's flowing in and out of it.
> I know Berners-Lee is a big Linked Data advocate, but the approach that's being taken by the W3C is painfully slow and doesn't take into account the fluidity of information.
See I took "flow of data" from my previous paragraph, applied my nifty FaceTwit thesaurus to it, and turned up "fluidity of information". More of my fluids to come.
> This is one of the reasons why developers (and even semantic web developers) have resorted to non-W3C technologies more and more: JSON, Javascript-wrappers, Webkit, client-side routing, non-REST HTTP requests, IOSockets/Coment, streaming apis, etc.
Look at me! I'm namedropping web technologies more than hip-hop artists namedrop the Notorious B.I.G or Tupac. I can do this all day: XML Servlet configotrons. Buffered packet gumballs. NoSQL big data Hadoopian piglets mashed up with tagsoup gravy. Activity ICMP hosepipe of RSS-killa sauce.
Pay special attention to my mention of non-REST HTTP requests. You see, REST HTTP requests are a W3C technology. But non-REST HTTP requests? That's not W3C, that's those innovative guys down the hall, second room to the right.
> The web is emergent and out of control. Deal with it. Technologies and tools compete for attention and adoption. You snooze, you lose.
Now I switch from my awesome web developer hat to my social media evangelist hat. This paragraph is not only a segue, it also panders to those of you playing buzzword bingo!
> As for the 'content silos': Are you fucking kidding me? 'Content' being stuck in Facebook is not going to happen, in fact, the content is going to flow more and more. If you mark something as 'only my friends can see this', it will leak. Don't want to be tagged in a picture? Well, you have no choice. Face recognition will get you soon.
I mentioned flow of data previously. But now it's the content that's flowing. The ultra-innovative internet catalyzer Facebook won't be able to keep your data private. Why? Because I say so, that's why.
> The internet, thanks to social web, is a giant copy machine. There's a huge shitstream of content and your attention and the activity around it is the thing that matters. Who cares about the damn content.
Want to know the internet's secret? No one watches Youtube videos. No one shares links to content on Twitter and Facebook. They just look at the activity around it. In fact, if my pal Tim BL didn't write this _content_, I'd still have some activity to do! Furious activity in fact, in the privacy of my room while penning my next ode to Facebook and Twitter.
Btw if you haven't been keeping up on my use of liquids, we've gone from flow to fluidity to shitstream. Which mirrors the general coherence of this comment.
> So maybe it's time for the 'Web Founder' and the W3 Web Museum to roll up their sleeves and do something, instead of bitch about the companies that actually advance the web.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, and the other _companies_ that are members of the World Wide Web _Consortium_ better start rolling up their sleeves. They aren't doing anything to advance the internet.
> So instead of bitching about the companies and people that actually advance the web and change the world, maybe it's time for the 'Web Founder' and the Web Museum to roll up their sleeves and do something...
That last paragraph was so good, I'ma say it twice while flipping the order of my sentence. That's activity, you see. With activity, you can copypasta content, because no one cares about content anymore. And now that I have proven my point, my point is proven.
Switching back to my regular voice, because there are points to make that
I can't shoehorn into the fisking format.
"Berners-Lee and W3C get way too much credit for the web". Putting 'Web Founder' in airquotes. This blatant disrespect is what angered me the most and influenced my decision to fisk instead of a polite rebuttal.
Tim Berners-Lee:
- was the first to execute on the idea of combining hypertext with TCP/IP and DNS
- wrote the first browser and HTTP server
- gave it away instead of encumbering it with patents or royalties
- has the humility to downplay his accomplishment and share the credit where it is due: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Kids (under "Did you invent the Internet?")
- continues to work on the web to make sure it remains open and transparent instead of resting on his laurels assured of his place in history. The Scientific American essay is but the most recent example
I'm not sure what more he would need to do to be considered the founder of the web.
"Berners-Lee and W3C get way too much credit for the web". Putting 'Web Founder' in airquotes. This blatant disrespect is what angered me the most and influenced my decision to fisk instead of a polite rebuttal.
Tim Berners-Lee:
- was the first to execute on the idea of combining hypertext with TCP/IP and DNS
- wrote the first browser and HTTP server
- gave it away instead of encumbering it with patents or royalties
- has the humility to downplay his accomplishment and share the credit where it is due: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Kids (under "Did you invent the Internet?")
- continues to work on the web to make sure it remains open and transparent instead of resting on his laurels assured of his place in history. The Scientific American essay is but the most recent example
I'm not sure what more he would need to do to be considered the founder of the web.
Of course, he did a lot of amazingly awesome stuff as a hacker in the early 90s — but he started turning out turd after turd as soon as his W3C took control over web standards from the IETF and he became a bureaucrat.
He produced a masterwork, but I can't think of a second one — from my POV all the awesome post-IETF web developments happened despite the W3C's best efforts to derail them.
He produced a masterwork, but I can't think of a second one — from my POV all the awesome post-IETF web developments happened despite the W3C's best efforts to derail them.
I'm sure you've written better comments in the past, but countering his argument with sarcasm and no facts shows no class at all.
This is exactly the kind of reply I don't want to see on HN.
This is exactly the kind of reply I don't want to see on HN.
It's upvoted because it demonstrates why the original comment is exactly what shouldn't be on HN: an empty stream of popular jargon that turns argument into a hipper-than-thou fashion show of buzzwords and name-dropping. HN should be more than a beauty contest to see who can sound most like a guy who's going to get rich someday. keyist's comment may be ugly, but it's insightful and just.
I agree but I'll add that the parent comment wasn't very high either.
I completely agree with you. I'm saddened by the number of up-votes, given the tone of post doesn't encourage continued discussion nor add substantively to the information in the comments.
What I think is particularly sad is that I bet he/she could have given a good argument that helped people understand the dangers of a Facebook-monopolized Internet.
What I think is particularly sad is that I bet he/she could have given a good argument that helped people understand the dangers of a Facebook-monopolized Internet.
Facebook dominating the web is a horror scenario.What good could you see about it? Do you want to pay a Facebook tax for every online innovation you can come up with? Do you want to be at their mercy for the survival of your business?
My only hope is that in the long run freedom of innovation will always be stronger than a walled garden like Facebook.
I thought Berners-Lee invented the web - how can he get too much credit for that? Hypertext as an idea existed before that, I think, but he did it.
My only hope is that in the long run freedom of innovation will always be stronger than a walled garden like Facebook.
I thought Berners-Lee invented the web - how can he get too much credit for that? Hypertext as an idea existed before that, I think, but he did it.
Facebook, Google, Twitter, Youtube, etc. These services thrive because they fill one or more holes that exist in the protocol space of the web. Eventually, these services should just be made into standard web protocols.
What is truly disturbing is the slow pace at which new protocols are folded into the web. Perhaps that is a problem that should be addressed. Until then, we will keep seeing all these services being built on top of the existing web structure instead of as an extension to it.
It would be nice to see one day, a web infrastructure that is as well managed and patched as Linux is.
What is truly disturbing is the slow pace at which new protocols are folded into the web. Perhaps that is a problem that should be addressed. Until then, we will keep seeing all these services being built on top of the existing web structure instead of as an extension to it.
It would be nice to see one day, a web infrastructure that is as well managed and patched as Linux is.
I don't understand what you're getting at. Why do new "protocols" need to be folded into the web?
The web can't ever be as well-managed and patched as Linux is. The web doesn't have a pre-defined scope. It's more like a transport layer for content and other services. And I'd like to see it stay that way; companies will compete and innovate way faster than any small standards committee or group of maintainers will.
The web can't ever be as well-managed and patched as Linux is. The web doesn't have a pre-defined scope. It's more like a transport layer for content and other services. And I'd like to see it stay that way; companies will compete and innovate way faster than any small standards committee or group of maintainers will.
I know Ted Nelson personally. He invented the word hypertext. I'd say inventing that word proves him the father of hypertext, though Tim was the midwife.
Sorry, but inventing the word really isn't good enough. I think the concept might actually predate the web for a couple of decades (too lazy to check Wikipedia right now). I seem to remember seeing an article on HN about a guy who invented it all long before there were even computers.
Also, maybe Tim found the right mix of ingredients. No idea, but perhaps early hypertext concepts did not include distributed documents, for example?
Also, maybe Tim found the right mix of ingredients. No idea, but perhaps early hypertext concepts did not include distributed documents, for example?
There was an idea called the Memex in 1946 that was an inspiration for subsequent hypertext ideas. And a Belgian in the 1920s had a "steampunk" web, but it built more on the idea of inter-text referencing (like most encyclopedias use). Ted Nelson justifiably gets the credit for the term. There were a couple of distributed document with hyper-linkage ideas floating around in 1989 and 1990, so possibly Tim was just the one to put enough of it together and it would have happened within a year or two anyway, but there are certain aspects to his particular putting-it-together (the ease of writing HTML for display and content for example) that were important to the web becoming what it did, and possibly might not have happened at all without his push.
It's just a bloody pointer - give credit to someone who truly deserves it - the fellow who invented pronouns!
Most business now have to pay a Google tax in one way or the other, whether it be adwords, content building, link building or paying for SEO.
That's just the cost of entering a particular marketplace.
Think of it as rent.
That's just the cost of entering a particular marketplace.
Think of it as rent.
Paying for SEO isn't a 'Google tax.' It's marketing. That's like saying that when you start a business you have to pay the 'Yellowpages tax.'
Still, Google can't prevent you from running an internet business. I have heard some cases of companies prevailing without Google's approval.
Most businesses need to pay for marketing, of course running businesses is not free.
Most businesses need to pay for marketing, of course running businesses is not free.
Moreover, rent to be paid to those who actually built the building.
If Facebook adds as much value to the web as Google did with their search engine, then they more than deserve getting "rent".
If Facebook adds as much value to the web as Google did with their search engine, then they more than deserve getting "rent".
In between the sandstorms of irrelevant buzzwords, you did successfully make the case that Facebook is strong and getting stronger.
But we already knew that, so it's an easy case to make.
Tim's point is that Facebook is harmful and getting more harmful. That's entirely consistent with your point, despite the tone of disagreement that pervades your post.
But we already knew that, so it's an easy case to make.
Tim's point is that Facebook is harmful and getting more harmful. That's entirely consistent with your point, despite the tone of disagreement that pervades your post.
The other day we went to an arts event/party. Most of the pictures are trapped inside Facebook. The artists couldn't comprehend why I didn't have "face" at all. This same crowd would've uploaded the pictures to Flickr only a couple of years ago.
Staying out of Facebook isn't enough.
Staying out of Facebook isn't enough.
I loved the blog article the other day about the guy who had to create a Facebook account for his granny to see his pictures, then delete it again after a while. I think the same person mentioned going through their privacy settings in Facebook once per day. What pain point is FB solving that people willingly go through so much pain?
Are there no other photo sharing services out there?
Are there no other photo sharing services out there?
I voted with my feet - I have long since stopped using Facebook for anything other than an occasional game playing platform. Unfortunately I haven't yet found a suitable replacement to use as a social network, but I live in hope...
I always have a feeling that facebook is limiting entrepreneurs. You can't launch a social product today without making it facebook compliant and this means abiding by facebook's rules, and working within their structural limitations. These limitations they've imposed ensure that they keep their market share and prevent anyone else from really growing in the same space as them. But I don't think they can stay at the top forever. Demand for an open alternative is too high, and I'm really hoping (along with many others) that Diaspora can make some headway with this.
I know a guy who recently tried to build a social application, starting outside of Facebook. It was actually a very good idea and well implemented; unfortunately, the complete lack of connectivity to groups of people sealed its fate. By the time he got to integrating into Facebook Connect, he was almost out of money.
I think entrepreneurs wanting to build a social product are in better shape today because of Facebook and its built-in social network. But you are, of course, correct that building on somebody else's platform is always dangerous.
Lastly, "Open" is not really a feature to end-users. Diaspora will win if they can build compelling features that Facebook, as a result of its closed network, can't. Otherwise, I doubt highly it will be successful.
I think entrepreneurs wanting to build a social product are in better shape today because of Facebook and its built-in social network. But you are, of course, correct that building on somebody else's platform is always dangerous.
Lastly, "Open" is not really a feature to end-users. Diaspora will win if they can build compelling features that Facebook, as a result of its closed network, can't. Otherwise, I doubt highly it will be successful.
I agree ... but openness and transparency alone may be a good enough draw for many people, so long as diaspora can compete with facebook feature-wise.
Previous discussion from 2 days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1929796
I think he's right in some ways. I for one don't want my internet to be branded. I'd like to know how it came about that everywhere you look you only see a few brands on the internet now. Facebook, Twitter, Google, eBay. Are we saying there's only one social networking site, only one whatever-Twitter-is site, only one search engine, only one place to sell your garage sale junk? How did that happen?
Companies like Disney control the movie industry by controlling the channel. You can make movies all you want, but try to get them into the theatres and rental stores. It's the same for the music industry. You can cut cd's all you want but try to get them on the radio or in the music stores. You can make a website and it can be the best website in the world, but if it doesn't appear in a search engine, it doesn't exist.
With all these big, rich companies doing business on the internet, do you think for a minute they are going to allow it to remain free?
Companies like Disney control the movie industry by controlling the channel. You can make movies all you want, but try to get them into the theatres and rental stores. It's the same for the music industry. You can cut cd's all you want but try to get them on the radio or in the music stores. You can make a website and it can be the best website in the world, but if it doesn't appear in a search engine, it doesn't exist.
With all these big, rich companies doing business on the internet, do you think for a minute they are going to allow it to remain free?
In a world where people take out payday loans at 400% is it any a surprise that they would incur technical debt in managing their content? The typical user thinks about the interaction with other users, not the content.
I don't know how FB can be a threat to the web if it can only exist because of the web. In a sense, friend data is just another kind of data. The same thing can be said, for example, of Gmail or hotmail. They host the email and contact information for millions of people.
That's like saying cancer can't be a threat to people because it can only exist because of people.
There are already native Facebook apps for iPads and phones. So FB can exist without the web. Some people predict a Facebook phone in the future.
Good point. It's not hard to imagine social media to have evolved out of web based email clients.
If instead of facebook we had all Facebook's features gradually added to Gmail (If you sent a Googler back 5-6 years in a time machine, that might be what we'd get), I don't think it would seem odd that it should be an island.
If instead of facebook we had all Facebook's features gradually added to Gmail (If you sent a Googler back 5-6 years in a time machine, that might be what we'd get), I don't think it would seem odd that it should be an island.
I have successfully solved the Facebook dilemma by not having any friends.
Facebook is the AOL of today. It just make it easy for non-computer literate people to communicate without learning how to send and receive email.
[deleted]
Aren't closed silos a big part of the web already, Facebook or no? The W3C is mostly a closed silo, isn't it?
Is there much value in the content on FB to those outside the social circle it is intended for? Most of my friends on FB post interesting blurbs, but it is time-specific and usually requires some insider information to be useful/interpreted.
One huge value: Targeted advertising. The FB scripts can tell your sexual orientation from your post content. I imagine they know a lot more than that too.
Nothing to worry about - people will realise in a few years or so that status updates are only feeding their stupid egos and they'll find themselves many other things to distract themselves with soon enough.
I think this headline puts a somewhat sensational slant on what TimBL actually wrote.
w3c should create open standards for social networks.
i don't think these companies are going to do it, and this seems exactly what w3c is meant to do. so why not? seems more productive.
i don't think these companies are going to do it, and this seems exactly what w3c is meant to do. so why not? seems more productive.
I don't exactly rejoice at the idea of reading another W3C standard document.
Well there's FOAF (RDF Ontology for Social Networking). You may want to use a proprietary backend to manage your data as a social networking provider, but the w3c schema already exists to share your graph.
Here's Tim's foaf data as an example: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card
Here's Tim's foaf data as an example: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card
Why not? Because I would rather not have yet another xml-based standard.
Was TBL refused a job in FB?
[deleted]
As does Admiral Ackbar!
So if Facebook is so bad, someone please come up with a compelling high level vision of what could replace it and why the replacement would be better?
Preferably something as compelling as Sir Tim's original vision for the Web...
Preferably something as compelling as Sir Tim's original vision for the Web...
I've got an idea. How about if you want a presence on the web, you have this website that you control with whatever data and pictures you want on it? Coders can develop things we'll call content management systems to make it a bit easier for you to put your data on there if you don't want to do it all yourself, and since you'll control it, you can add whatever tools and automation and widgets and the like.
I'll one up you on this. Maybe one particular group of coders can build a giant CMS that also has social networking features and allows everyone to have their page on the web, and keep up with what their friends are doing, without having to own, set up and administer their own servers (a prowess which most are incapable of). The hardest thing would be getting critical mass, but if someone could do it, wow, that would be awesome, right?
Sweet. We can call it Everyone On-line, or EOL.
We'll start first in the States, and call it AOL.
We'll start first in the States, and call it AOL.
http://wordpress.com/
Really, what's the matter with blogs and feed readers for keeping in touch?
You know what would be great? A blogging platform that's light (picture / link attachment painless) and that also has a feed reader built in.
Oh wait ... http://www.tumblr.com/
Really, what's the matter with blogs and feed readers for keeping in touch?
You know what would be great? A blogging platform that's light (picture / link attachment painless) and that also has a feed reader built in.
Oh wait ... http://www.tumblr.com/
That sounds so interesting that you could probably make a movie out of it.
you have this website that you control
...and suddenly you've taken on about a million problems that are tangential to the problem of keeping in touch with people.
...and suddenly you've taken on about a million problems that are tangential to the problem of keeping in touch with people.
Yes, but that'd give me choice and force me to think. Choice is hard, let's go shopping!
I agree with the sentiment completely but doesn't Tim-Berners-Lee work for Google, the main competitor?
I don't think so (wikipedia doesn't mention it). Maybe you're thinking of Vint Cerf? He works at google.
Serf - TCP/IP
Berners-Lee - World Wide Web, HTML, HTTP (I think)Yes, you are correct, I was thinking of Vint Cerf.
Google calendar for events - Anyone with any email address can be invited to an event. Google calendar also emails out standard format .ics files with it's invites so participants are free to use whatever calendar app they choose and just import the ics files. (This also hooks up nicely with my android calendar). I'm looking forward to when everyone on Facebook gets an @facebook email address and then I'm going to start sending them all Google calendar invites ;-) Seriously, I think Google calendar is a seriously under recognised service.
Twitter for a news feed equivalent - You don't need an account to read so it is open enough. (There is also status.net or identi.ca if you want even more openness). I embed a feed of the most recent posts in my webpage. If you want to subscribe, you can use RSS so you don't have to use twitter to follow me.
Photos - I use a combination of FlickR and my own custom image gallery on my website. On FlickR you can set the photos to be public so viewers don't need to have an account.
Messages - Obviously I just use email.
When I meet people I want to connect with, I ask for their email address rather than ask if they are on Facebook. I occasionally use Facebook to find people and then ask for their email address via Fb message.
I can't think of anything else I really miss out on from Fb.