Comments on: Of DDoSs and SPOFs: How Twitter and Facebook violate “The Internet Way”

By: Dan York

Dan York — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:47:22 +0000

Ken, that’s exactly my point, though. Twitter and Facebook are single services provided by single companies. We need to get to “globally distributed multi-provider services” where Twitter and Facebook are just two of the many providers out there. You’re absolutely right… “every one of the individual providers within the many services mentioned can and does go down”.

We need to get to the point where Twitter can go down, but “microblogging” as an overall service continues. Just as when GMail goes down, it takes a ton of people off of “email”, Twitter would be the same way… taking a ton of people off of “microblogging”, but yet it could still continue with others.

I agree with you that it will probably be the next iteration of bright shiny objects before we get there, though. Twitter and Facebook have proved there is an interest in sharing status updates, just as MCI Mail, CompuServe, Prodigy, The Source, GENIE, etc. proved there was an interest in sending email. Now we need to make microblogging/shared status updates distributed and decentralized…

By: Ken Camp

Ken Camp — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:34:41 +0000

While I agree with the premise, I don’t particularly agree with the opening apples vs oranges comparision. You talk about Twitter going down. And Facebook. The you shift to the web, email, rss and the like. You open with a comparison of a single service, free at that. Actually to single and discrete free services, then compare them to globally distributed multi-provider services. It’s simply not a fair or equitable comparison.

The argument in favor of resilient, multi-player microblogging services is a good one, and any of us who use them will agree with that need. But that’s not Twitter or Facebook. Every one of the individual providers within the many services mentioned can and does go down.

I agree we need open standards and broader service. I think the next iteration of what’s hot will come along before we achieve it. I think microblogging standards will be an “after the fact” revision we’ll see once many of us have moved on to other things.

By: Disruptive Conversations

Disruptive Conversations — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:12:43 +0000

The Single Biggest Reason Why I Can’t Yet REALLY Use Google Wave…

I’m a big fan of Google Wave. A huge fan in fact. I’ve written about it, posted a screencast about using it in conference collaboration and have much more about it in my writing queue. I love the promise of……

By: Speaking of Standards » Blog Archive » Must-See Video: Tim O’Reilly’s Web 2.0 Keynote on The War For The Web

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:18:34 +0000

[...] keep the Internet as the open platform for innovation that it has been for decades… those who champion “The Internet Way” – and those who would like to return the Internet to the world of walled gardens from which [...]

By: links for 2009-11-13 | stuart henshall

links for 2009-11-13 | stuart henshall — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:01:29 +0000

[...] This view needs amplification. @danyork on: How Twitter and Facebook violate “The Internet Way” … A couple of decades later, we’ve found that “status messaging” or “microblogging” or whatever we want to call it is a powerful communication tool. We need now to tear down those walls and move it to a distributed and decentralized architecture. (tags: twitter facebook internet civiltech control power dependencies decentralized p2p) [...]

By: Emerging Tech Talk » Blog Archive » Emerging Tech Talk #36 – Christopher Penn about Google Wave

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:31:36 +0000

[...] tool. As I listened to this recording today, I was struck by how much of it was echoed in a recent blog post I put up about the need for distributed and decentralized systems – we do need that distributed/decentralized approach. I know that while the Wave protocol is [...]