OStatic

by Ted Curran on Nov. 23, 2010

One big benefit the public social media giants (facebook, twitter, et al.) have over open source projects is that they solve the hosting problem-- most average users don't know what web hosting IS and why they should have to pay for it.

Open Alternatives like Wordpress.org/Buddypress, Status.net and others have similar features but they require users to host their own files. They add an extra level of difficulty to technoblivious users who just want to share pictures and funny videos with their friends. If open source projects would just make it as easy to get started as Tumblr does and then made the sales pitch all about privacy and security, it would be a hit.

by an anonymous user on Nov. 23, 2010

Isn't the 'Open Social' Platform a graveyard for the F8 platform duplication effort?

by sirmacik on Nov. 23, 2010

Is this really a challenge?

I think that Diaspora* is rather project witch mission is tho show that social networking might be done different way. With better support for users privacy and totally different idea of social network service (decentralization). If Diaspora* could have an impact on Facebook development that's a good thing and IMO a great success.

by an anonymous user on Nov. 24, 2010

Diaspora is simply a horrible name for a social networking site.

by sirmacik on Nov. 24, 2010

But it's essential for the idea of this social network service.

by Brad M on Nov. 24, 2010

People are opting into a community when they join those sites just as when they move into a home in one neighborhood versus another. These communities are segregated from each other just like physical communities. The whole concept of social networking is based on community. That concept becomes eroded if the communities are flattened, just as transient residents can impact the "community feel" in a real neighborhood.

Facebook's value is that has built up such a large community without sacrificing the community nature of the site. Contrast that with MySpace which became a free-for-all and entirely lost any sense of community. There's something to be said about the ease (or lack thereof) with which you can export data from these sites, but again, content such as pictures is often already owned--and provided--by the users and other data is a product of belonging to one site versus another. You can't be in one neighborhood and still listen to what's going on in another neighborhood...

The appification of the web is a bigger threat than social networking sites. The sites at least rely on a common platform for both data delivery and presentation. However, social networking "apps" are turning the web into a mere data transport protocol while providing their own presentation framework that is proprietary per app and/or device.

by Jim on Nov. 24, 2010

I actually like it both ways - I have a blog, Flikr and Formspring that are completely open to the world where i post stuff open to all and that accept both named and anonymous comments, but I also use Facebook where I post more personal pictures and stuff that I only want friends and maybe friends of friends to see, so for me the "walled-garden" is good for things i am not comfortable broadcasting to the world-wild web!

by Brad M on Nov. 24, 2010

People are opting into a community when they join those sites just as when they move into a home in one neighborhood versus another. These communities are segregated from each other just like physical communities. The whole concept of social networking is based on community. That concept becomes eroded if the communities are flattened, just as transient residents can impact the "community feel" in a real neighborhood.

Facebook's value is that has built up such a large community without sacrificing the community nature of the site. Contrast that with MySpace which became a free-for-all and entirely lost any sense of community. There's something to be said about the ease (or lack thereof) with which you can export data from these sites, but again, content such as pictures is often already owned--and provided--by the users and other data is a product of belonging to one site versus another. You can't be in one neighborhood and still listen to what's going on in another neighborhood...

The appification of the web is a bigger threat than social networking sites. The sites at least rely on a common platform for both data delivery and presentation. However, social networking "apps" are turning the web into a mere data transport protocol while providing their own presentation framework that is proprietary per app and/or device.

by Paweł Janas on Nov. 25, 2010

The idea behind these thoughts is wrong. People share on Facebook things that they would in the past share on email or not on the Internet at all. And there is still some public stuff there, so it's like added value.

In other words: you cannot force people to share their privacy.

But it's possible that i don't get the whole idea of Facebook correctly (I just use it my simple way), so I may be wrong;)

by Gnu Skool on Nov. 27, 2010

It's never too late, Bill Gates thought he had the world 'hook, line and sinker' - but it's fair to say FOSS may still put a spanner in the works on that idea.

There will always be a number of people who will sacrifice freedom for ease of use, but so too will there be people, a growing number, who won't.