This isn’t some standard polemic about “those stupid walled-garden networks are bad!” I know that Facebook and Twitter and Pinterest and LinkedIn and the rest are great sites, and they give their users a lot of value. They’re amazing achievements, from a pure software perspective. But they’re based on a few assumptions that aren’t necessarily correct. The primary fallacy that underpins many of their mistakes is that user flexibility and control necessarily lead to a user experience complexity that hurts growth. And the second, more grave fallacy, is the thinking that exerting extreme control over users is the best way to maximize the profitability and sustainability of their networks.
The first step to disabusing them of this notion is for the people creating the next generation of social applications to learn a little bit of history, to know your shit, whether that’s about Twitter’s business model or Google’s social features or anything else. We have to know what’s been tried and failed, what good ideas were simply ahead of their time, and what opportunities have been lost in the current generation of dominant social networks.
It’s and old post. I’d almost forgotten who Anil Dash is. He had me at “The Web”. Thank you, Nicola for this trip down memory lane. I think this is the space folks like David Shanske, Matthias Pfefferle, Ryan Barrett and others are trying to create/re-create.
Chirs, thanks for the link to "lost infrastructure" on IndieWeb.org.
@koolinus In case you'd like to see a comparison of the web we lost to the new #IndieWeb that we're building, this overview chart can be helpful: indieweb.org/lost_infrastru…
@khurtwilliams @koolinus In case you'd like to see a comparison of the web we lost to the new #IndieWeb that we're building, this overview chart can be helpful: https://indieweb.org/lost_infrastructure
Syndication Links :
, yes indeed! it is still current
Event if it's six years old, it's still terribly current…