Pepijn de Vos | 1 Jun 21:16 2010
Picon

Protocol

Hi,

Here is one more of my random questions.

I have still absolutely no idea what everyone is working on and which protocol is most likely to catch on.

If I where to write a social client, server or service, which protocol would be wise to use?

Groeten,
Pepijn de Vos
--
Sent from my iPod Shuffle
http://pepijndevos.nl

Matt Lee | 1 Jun 21:27 2010

Re: Protocol

On 06/01/10 15:16, Pepijn de Vos wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Here is one more of my random questions.
> 
> I have still absolutely no idea what everyone is working on and which protocol is most likely to catch on.
> 
> If I where to write a social client, server or service, which protocol would be wise to use?

OStatus.

Melvin Carvalho | 1 Jun 23:29 2010
Picon

Re: Protocol



2010/6/1 Pepijn de Vos <pepijndevos-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Hi,

Here is one more of my random questions.

I have still absolutely no idea what everyone is working on and which protocol is most likely to catch on.

The official GNU Social team, have hooked up with the folks at status.net for the next phase of work.  This is a development that has been formalized in the last week, with code being assigned to the FSF.  The list for that project is:

 http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/social

There's are a few other projects also going on, that are not official GNU Social projects, but have been discussed historically on this list.

The folks at lorea.cc have been working on a federation project for elgg, something I've also contributed to, and am about to help test.  I'd hope to be able to demo something later in the year, and would be open to assigning my code to GNU / the FSF, is it's considered to be of value.
 

If I where to write a social client, server or service, which protocol would be wise to use?

OStatus, which is a set of (HTTP) protocols used by status.net has been selected for the next phase of GNU Social.

I'm also considering support for OStatus in my work, but I'm currently unclear whether this is a free (as in freedom) set of protocols, that I can use modify, and improve, or whether there are non-free elements/restrictions, in place, such as patent non assertion restrictions.  On establishing these details, i'll consider support for OStatus, for the I build.  I'm leaning towards implementing support for it right now, so that anything I create can be compatible/interoperable with GNU Social first release.

There's a bunch of other folk that have been discussing many different ideas also historically on this list. 

I'm not sure what the status of the two lists are going forward, now that GNU Social is starting on implementation. 

It would be nice if the people that had gathered hear could keep in touch, maybe on this list or at a new home ...
 

Groeten,
Pepijn de Vos
--
Sent from my iPod Shuffle
http://pepijndevos.nl



Hellekin O. Wolf | 2 Jun 06:12 2010

How Different are Young Adults from Older Adults When it Comes to Information Privacy Attitudes and Policies?

I was pointed to a paper "How Different are Young Adults from Older
Adults When it Comes to Information Privacy Attitudes and Policies?"

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589864

Two relevant points from the abstract for those who won't read it,
beyond the fact that the study didn't find significant differences
between young older adults regarding privacy (emphasis mine):

42 percent of young Americans answered all of our five online privacy
questions *incorrectly*. 88 percent answered only two or fewer
correctly. The problem is even more pronounced when presented with
offline privacy issues – post hoc analysis showed that young Americans
were more likely to answer no questions correctly than any other age
group.

We conclude then that young-adult Americans have *an aspiration for
increased privacy* even while they participate in an online reality
that is optimized to increase their revelation of personal data. 

==
hk

Daniel Sobey | 2 Jun 11:15 2010
Picon

Re: Protocol

There is also One Social Web http://onesocialweb.org/ which uses xmpp to
federate the network. It has a server, web client and android client.
It's open source and is being written by a vodaphone research team.

I've only just installed a status.net instance, how hard do you think it
would be to bridge the two services? How hard would it be to create a
plugin for status.net that talks xmpp and speaks the one social web
protocol. Another approach may be to write a separate ostatus
implementation that uses the java library from one social web and use
that as a bridge.

Mischa Tuffield | 2 Jun 13:26 2010
Picon

Re: How Different are Young Adults from Older Adults When it Comes to Information Privacy Attitudes and Policies?

Hi, 

Thanks for the link, will give the full document a read soon.

"Pew" in the US did a recent survey on young peoples attitudes to privacy, and they found that young people
are as worried about theirs as their adult counterparts: 

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Reputation-Management.aspx

dannah boyd from M$ research gives a nice summary of the report here: 

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/05/26/pew-research-confirms-that-youth-care-about-their-reputation.html

The research you linked to got mentioned in the reg (not a fan of), which is pseudo mainstream-press I guess: 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/19/privacy_survey/

Thanks for the link, will no longer have to cite the reg ;)

Mischa

On 2 Jun 2010, at 05:12, Hellekin O. Wolf wrote:

> I was pointed to a paper "How Different are Young Adults from Older
> Adults When it Comes to Information Privacy Attitudes and Policies?"
> 
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589864
> 
> Two relevant points from the abstract for those who won't read it,
> beyond the fact that the study didn't find significant differences
> between young older adults regarding privacy (emphasis mine):
> 
> 42 percent of young Americans answered all of our five online privacy
> questions *incorrectly*. 88 percent answered only two or fewer
> correctly. The problem is even more pronounced when presented with
> offline privacy issues – post hoc analysis showed that young Americans
> were more likely to answer no questions correctly than any other age
> group.
> 
> We conclude then that young-adult Americans have *an aspiration for
> increased privacy* even while they participate in an online reality
> that is optimized to increase their revelation of personal data. 
> 
> ==
> hk
> 

Samuel Rose | 2 Jun 17:57 2010
Picon

Re: How Different are Young Adults from Older Adults When it Comes to Information Privacy Attitudes and Policies?

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Hellekin O. Wolf <hellekin@...> wrote:
> I was pointed to a paper "How Different are Young Adults from Older
> Adults When it Comes to Information Privacy Attitudes and Policies?"
>
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589864
>
> Two relevant points from the abstract for those who won't read it,
> beyond the fact that the study didn't find significant differences
> between young older adults regarding privacy (emphasis mine):
>
> 42 percent of young Americans answered all of our five online privacy
> questions *incorrectly*. 88 percent answered only two or fewer
> correctly. The problem is even more pronounced when presented with
> offline privacy issues – post hoc analysis showed that young Americans
> were more likely to answer no questions correctly than any other age
> group.
>
> We conclude then that young-adult Americans have *an aspiration for
> increased privacy* even while they participate in an online reality
> that is optimized to increase their revelation of personal data.
>
> ==
> hk
>
>

Thanks for sharing this, Hellekin.

It seems to me that giving the individual control of data privacy, no
matter what network, protocol, online space, etc would be an approach
that is adaptable to any demographic. At least, adaptable once the
individual masters controlling the privacy of their data with whatever
means available.

This was the goal of http://www.attentiontrust.org/ which is now
defunct, apparently.

We have a description at P2P Foundation http://p2pfoundation.net/Attention_Trust

Although, I don't think the Attention Trust approach was really
technically all that great at all. *But*, the *principle* of giving
individuals control is crucial, I believe. Attention Trust at least
got that part right.

-- 
-- 
Sam Rose
Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose@...
http://forwardfound.org
http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
http://socialmediaclassroom.com
http://localfoodsystems.org
http://notanemployee.net
http://communitywiki.org
http://p2pfoundation.net

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan

Jon Spriggs | 3 Jun 11:32 2010
Picon

Re: [Social-discuss] Protocol

I think that question would be better asked to the StatusNet and
OneSocialWeb lists (CC'd). I've also got both of these running as
well, so it's quite an interesting question for me as well.

Rgds
--

-- 
Jon "The Nice Guy" Spriggs

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Sobey <dns_server@...> wrote:
> There is also One Social Web http://onesocialweb.org/ which uses xmpp to
> federate the network. It has a server, web client and android client.
> It's open source and is being written by a vodaphone research team.
>
> I've only just installed a status.net instance, how hard do you think it
> would be to bridge the two services? How hard would it be to create a
> plugin for status.net that talks xmpp and speaks the one social web
> protocol. Another approach may be to write a separate ostatus
> implementation that uses the java library from one social web and use
> that as a bridge.
>
>
>
Pablo Martin | 5 Jun 16:02 2010
Picon

Re: Protocol

On 01/06/10 21:16, Pepijn de Vos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is one more of my random questions.
>
> I have still absolutely no idea what everyone is working on and which protocol is most likely to catch on.
>
> If I where to write a social client, server or service, which protocol would be wise to use?
>
>   

The serialization format is now activitystreams (and objects) everywhere
(of which atom is the standard afaik, but there are rdf, json and rss
variants). Then, for transports you have http get, pubsubhubbub, xmpp,
psyc, salmon.

kisses!

 p.

Pablo Martin | 5 Jun 16:10 2010
Picon

Re: Adoption dynamics (and why your intuition fails)

On 05/06/10 07:28, B. Kip wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Pablo Martin <caedes <at> sindominio.net> wrote:
On 28/05/10 22:16, Nathan wrote:
> Miron Cuperman wrote:
>
>
> AFAICT, this isn't really a flash in the pan thing, a miss it and
> you've messed up scenario - this is the ground work for the next
> generation of the web - pretty much an unstoppable movement.
>


I completely agree with this view of decentralization... there is no way
to stop it and not so much need to go fast, although all the better if
it does :)

kisses

 P

I think one important point in how this evolves is data control.  One can view the movement toward openness and interoperability as inevitable because tools that can do this will be more useful than tools that don't.  But on the other hand what are the dynamics involved in a change toward user control of data?

the same standards and formats that work for federation and interoperability of networks on public servers can allow you to download your data into your computer directly much like you do with pop3 and email (but a lot better). in the way in and out you can de/encrypt the data.

How can you evolve toward users owning their profile when it is currently in another's hands?


Obviously if that other doesn't want to interoperate, there is only one way, crawling the data out and suicide: go somewhere else there will be plenty of places for your data to be safe (because we are all working on this aren't we).


  Is the only way to achieve user control of data to create a whole new system from scratch and jump over to it?

No, you can also do it incrementaly with existing systems and just some formats to allow the users to get the data in and out of the different services.

Make current services and web softwares more respectful with the user: the service MUST allow (and help) the user to encrypt, get the data out, get the data back in, leave, etc. Most services don't do this, and are thus designed to lock in the users. We can solve this situation with a bit of love.


A new network could be open and interoperable with all compatible applications and services, but would it be able to interact with those that asserted control over others' data or made private data public?


You can always interact because we have the code, and *the code don't obey the system* ;-).

Anyways, I think one thing is interoperability, and another is what you do with the data you have or who claims ownership or lock-in. A bit like gmail has control of peoples data, but I can interact with another email where I control the data. I trade off my privacy of course, unless I use an additional layer of encryption, but I can interact.




Some people's idea of the open social network is linking together of all the social networks out there.  But how does it work if I host my profile on my own server and encrypt all my data if I want to connect with someone on Facebook and Facebook insists that my information is unencrypted and public? (assuming they 'opened' to the point where I could connect to a Facebook user from outside of Facebook.)


Only the ones who want to talk have to talk, I think when your friends host their data under the eyes of mordor you can only encrypt or let go. Also, I don't think you encrypt the data in your own system, if it's your system you will just encrypt the hard drive if you care, you encrypt when you put the data "out there".



I'm just wondering how such an ecosystem can function (seriously wondering, not assuming it can't), and if not, what that means for the development of an open network.  I want a network where I can say exactly by whom every item I create can be seen.  If we want to have such a network can we evolve towards it, or will it require scrapping the currently used model and shifting over in one stroke?

I don't think it requires scrapping the current model. As i see it, public data, private data, group data, can coexist in the systems we have now and you will want your information in a different ways depending on the situation... its a lot of grades between something only you can read and something totally public and your information must be able to go where you want when you want.

kisses!!

 p.



Gmane