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
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.
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
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
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.
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 >
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
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.
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Pablo Martin <caedes <at> sindominio.net> wrote: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?I completely agree with this view of decentralization... there is no wayOn 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.
>
to stop it and not so much need to go fast, although all the better if
it does :)
kisses
P
How can you evolve toward users owning their profile when it is currently in another's hands?
Is the only way to achieve user control of data to create a whole new system from scratch and jump over to it?
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?
.
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.)
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?
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Nathan <nathan@...> wrote: > If you've got an open decentralized social network.. then why would you need > to invite anybody? to where exactly? and why a 'big bang', I can see why if > you're 'just another silo' trying to play catch up with twitter, facebook et > al - but not for this - unless of course, I completely misunderstand what > everybodies thinking & talking about. > > Regardless though, virality (?sp), is completely built in - make good, > useful tools, where the user controls their own destiny+data, and you're > done - build it well and the masses will come, build it badly and.. well no > loss in the scheme of things because other will build good things :) I'm sorry but I don't think this holds true. To «switch» and start to use a new service you really need a good incentive. Being decentralized and caring about your data and privacy is *not enough on it's own*. You won't just magically switch thereto. I had a few friends switch to identi.ca when it came out. Identi.ca had a very good point in being released, Twitter was having really big back pains because it didn't scale; so suddenly there was a mass of users. However, it didn't grow good enough, and most everyone non-technical I know left identica because everyone was on twitter. I will use a distributed social network (and probably make my own node, my website is my profile etc); but it will be a hard challenge to actually make it fun and usable. It's not that fun and usable if I haven't got a whole lot of friends that I can share stuff with etc. I can strongarm a few in, but from there, they're friends has to come as well. If not they will not use it because «there's so few I can friend» and then they will go back to Facebook. When I will be able to put my mother into my «family» group, then this has succeeded. That will take a long time... (She's been on Facebook a year now, and loving it like nothing else). Many of us want a change in the whole society, and then it's not just enough that we can use it. We need a big bang if we are going to both get our non-technical friends over, but also to keep them because they need their friends etc. -- -- Beste helsing, Odin Hørthe Omdal <odin.omdal@...> http://velmont.no
RSS Feed5 | |
|---|---|
3 | |
1 | |
4 | |
10 | |
5 | |
4 | |
42 | |
71 | |
98 | |
124 | |
134 | |
305 | |
1 | |
1 |
