
It's Time for an Open Twitter - jv22222
http://justinvincent.com/page/1972/its-time-for-an-open-twitter
======
e-dard
An alternative to Twitter has existed since 2008. It's called identi.ca

<http://identi.ca/>

The issue is getting people to start using such a service.

~~~
jv22222
If app.net can get the press it has gotten it probably means that the
marketplace has reached boiling point. I'm thinking developers and many
twitter users are ready for a more reliable and trust-able system.

~~~
ecaron
How does the "marketplace has reached boiling point [with Twitter]", for
app.net, differ from the marketplace reaching a boiling point with Facebook ->
DIASPORA*, yet the trends speak pretty loudly
(<http://www.google.com/trends/?q=diaspora>) that boiling point & press !=
success.

I'm hopeful to see app.net take off, but have been unable to find any
arguments/discussions talking about how app.net will succeed where DIASPORA
failed.

(Ignoring the obvious of having a better name, of course!)

~~~
jv22222
Facebook is (mainly) a single web app and the market knows it as such. Real
time messaging is a smorgasbord of different clients on different platforms
built by different people. The distributed nature of multiple vendors
marketing efforts might give it the edge.

Coupled with a lot of negative sentiments that Twitter users and developers
feel might make it an interesting story in the tech press. Diaspora had a lot
of press when they first started but they couldn't live up to the promise.

In this case it would be easier to live up to the promise because most of the
client code already exists. It would largely be a case of clients adding new
endpoints to the frontend and abstracting the rendering functions.

It would also be super easy for users to import their Twitter profile into a
new system. Just enter a Twitter username and you could easily get the bio &
avatar. Very low cost of transfer. If the press pushed it, and it was so easy
to move over, it would have a chance IMHO.

I should also point out I don't think app.net has this opportunity, I think it
could only happen for a truly free non-profit system.

------
hahainternet
How about we just use XMPP. You know, the currently existing, extensible,
email address syntax using distributed messaging platform?

Why does nobody seem to think of this?

~~~
Shish2k
Does XMPP allow you to follow a person and see all their public messages as
they're posted? Does it allow you to see historic posts for a user? Can you
search the network for all messages with a given tag, and get a live stream of
updates? Can you see trending tags?

~~~
hahainternet
XMPP is extensible, so the answer could be 'yes'.

However, the actual answers are 1\. Yes 2\. Yes 3\. Potentially 4\. Yes 5\.
Potentially

Instead of having central aggregation, the free market would drive sites
aggregating users messages to improve their features. You could sign up by
just adding the site to your list.

Of course, it would require some work and a draft standard. I'm not saying
it's perfect. Apparently identi.ca has a federation system too.

~~~
Zash
There exists an extension protocol for Microblogging over XMPP:
<http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0277.html>

Also check out buddycloud (.com / .org)

------
vannevar
It would be relatively easy to build a Twitter service on top of email.
Participating email providers would give every email account its own listserv
account. Followers would be subscribed to the list. Tweet emails would have
only a 144-character subject, no body (plus any multimedia attachments). You
could still use your email normally, but also access the full Twitter
functionality with a special client via the web, phone, or computer. Anyone
with a normal email account could follow you, though they would have to have
an account with a participating email provider in order to tweet or retweet.
If a couple of the big players implemented it, the service would have critical
mass overnight.

~~~
slantyyz
Why not build it on NNTP?

~~~
riffic
this wheel already exists. it does not need to be reinvented.

<http://www.w3.org/community/ostatus/>

<http://ostatus.org/about/>

------
andy_herbert
I'm no zealot, but arguably it's always time for an open alternative to any
service or product.

------
jiaaro
I like the idea of a 501c3 twitter competitor. It would be like wikipedia
business-wise I guess.

Centralization has it's benefits, and they could be maintained without all the
crap that's happening with twitter right now.

~~~
cdcarter
A 501c3 twitter is almost a brilliant solution. What grantmaker wouldn't want
to support an organization dedicated to people's speech and open journalism?
Valuing extensibility, openness, and free access, the mission is strong and
the market is there. If Caldwell wanted to move this way, and offer $50
sustaining memberships for new features and $100 memberships for developers,
nobody would blame him and all of a sudden he's open to some amazing funding
opportunities.

~~~
fomojola
Amazing funding opportunities perhaps, but not so great profit opportunities.
Let's not forget: app.net is actually looking to make a profit (an excellent
idea, if you ask me), not just replace Twitter.

~~~
cdcarter
A well run not-for-profit damn well better be making a profit, it's just not
turned back to the owner. They just take their allotted salary. Which is a
pretty fine idea too.

------
eddy23
from <http://www.thimbl.net/> "Thimbl, the free, open source, distributed
micro-blogging platform. If you're weary of corporations hi-jacking your
updates to make money, or if being locked in to one micro-blogging platform
tires you — well, then Thimbl is for you!"

<http://www.thimbl.net/faq.html> "Isn't this just like identi.ca/ostatus.net?

The similarity is only superficial, in that we draw upon similarities with
web2.0 platforms in how we communicate our use-case.

Diaspora, Crabgrass, NoseRub, StatusNet, identi.ca and the rest are just web-
apps with some sort of federation bolted-on. None of them are truly
distributed multi-tier systems like the classic internet applications such as
email, usenet, irc, or finger. Thimbl, on the other hand, is just a finger &
SSH client that illustrates that "microblogging" has already been possible on
the internet for decades. It's done by simply presenting the data differently
and making it look like the now-familiar Twitter interface. You don't need
anything from the Thimbl project running on your server to participate in
Thimbl, just the software that is already in your repository - namely SSH and
xinetd/finger or compatible alternatives."

------
bencevans
We need something along the lines of Diaspora (Open and Distributed). This
would encourage geeks to develop on the platform due to it being distributed
it would be hard/impossible to shutdown thus shall be around for ever (Twitter
might not be). And due to the openness of the codebase etc people would start
setting up hosts (Just like Wordpress or Diaspora etc.)

~~~
mhurron
Because Diaspora has done so well.

The number of people that care about why Diaspora exists and why a Twitter
clone in the same vein would exist is extremely small. Small userbase means
the service is basically dead on arrival.

~~~
weego
Completely this. Developers seem to think that the business stances Facebook
and Twitter take can be solved purely with more development. They can't be.
The problem is hearts and minds of users.

~~~
seagreen
Actually lack of good development may be the problem. Mike Cardwell's opinion
of status.net certainly isn't very high:

<https://twitter.com/mickeyc/status/236796994532827136>

and a lot of disaspora's momentum was destroyed by their early security issues
(someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, I wasn't following diaspora that
closely at the time).

Remember that as soon as even a few distributed or open systems get going they
can be linked together. At that point any new competitors to FB/twitter have a
strong incentive to be open as well because it gives them that precious
starting network. Then, like good guerillas, you engage the centralized
service in a drawn out struggle. They have to win every time, because as soon
as their userbase slips it's never coming back. You only have to win once.
(You can lose unlimited companies/protocols as long as more and better ones
are taking their place)

EDIT: P.S. I totally stole this strategy from a Pournelle book (Prince of
Sparta). "We Helots be coming back for more. Again . . . and again . . . and
again." Just because they're the bad guys doesn't mean we can't use their
tactics!

------
anuraj
My best wishes. Will contribute by code and kind. And the day such a service
exists, I am closing my twitter accounts.

------
Shish2k
I wonder how hard it would be to add a stalking function to an IRC server, so
you can follow someone and see all their public messages; and then log
messages so recent chat can be viewed by looking at a channel... are there any
other reasons to use twitter over IRC? :P

~~~
cdcarter
Wouldn't you always have to be connected, that way?

------
brianfryer
And Automattic is the company to build it.

------
lucian303
"How can one commercial company be allowed to own a protocol such as http or
email?"

Twitter's "protocol" is not a protocol but an API that runs on top of HTTP and
they created it. The ONLY responsibility Twitter has as a corporation is to do
whatever it takes to make the largest profit. If it failed at this, it would
actually be in violation of the law as that is the purpose of a corporation.

The world isn't entitled to anything Twitter builds.

~~~
icebraining
You're missing the point amidst your rage. The author means protocol as an
abstract mechanism, not a specific implementation. Email is not a specific
protocol either - I can receive email using JSON over HTTP - but a abstract
mechanism that is implemented by a collection of those.

And that's not Twitter irresponsibility; its responsibility is to do whatever
its owners want it to, following the law. Especially since it's a private
company, not a public one.

 _The world isn't entitled to anything Twitter builds._

Nobody says it is. The article is saying that Twitter is not entitled to be
the sole mechanism for distributing Twit-like messages, and that we should
build and use a different one.

~~~
slantyyz
>> The world isn't entitled to anything Twitter builds.

>> Nobody says it is.

I would say the choice of wording by the OP suggests otherwise.

From the OP:

>> Twitter has the power to topple regimes, but by following advertising
dollars they are building a walled garden and making _anti-competative_ (link
to: <http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2012/08/17/twitter-4/>) decisions.

If I'm not mistaken, the OP characterizes Twitter's imposing of developer
unfriendly guidelines as anti-competitive, which it is not. If Twitter was
being anti-competitive, they would be preventing competing platforms like
App.Net from existing - and that's not what's happening. Limiting what is
essentially a "free ride" is not anticompetitive.

From the same paragraph:

>> It does not bode well for our world that such _a commercially driven
company should wield so much power_ and be the epicenter of global
conversation.

As far as I know, all companies are commercially driven. Twitter wields power
because people like to use it. But so does Facebook. That the author tried to
"build a business on Twitter’s platform for the past 3 years" and then be
upset by Twitter's change of heart suggests a little sour grapes on his part.

Further:

>> Dalton Caldwell has an interesting idea, but I don’t think it will end the
_Twitter monopoly_

While Twitter is the market leader, it does not have a _monopoly_ on "status
updates". The last time I checked my Facebook feed, it was full of the same
type of updates that Twitter provides, and Facebook is pretty popular. Google+
is also a well funded competitor to Twitter.

~~~
icebraining
_the OP characterizes Twitter's imposing of developer unfriendly guidelines as
anti-competitive, which it is not_

I don't see how such characterization, accurate or not, mean that OP says the
world is entitled to what Twitter builds.

 _As far as I know, all companies are commercially driven._

Firstly, I still don't see how does that tie to my post. I wasn't making an
apology of the article. That said, OP did use a qualifier ( _"such"_ ). I'd
claim that there are less commercially driven companies, e.g. Canonical.

 _Twitter wields power because people like to use it._

People like to use Gmail too, but if they kick you out, you can still
communicate with everyone there. Twitter wields power because it's a locked-in
system.

 _But so does Facebook._

So?

 _That the author tried to "build a business on Twitter’s platform for the
past 3 years" and then be upset by Twitter's change of heart suggests a little
sour grapes on his part._

That's called an ad-hominem fallacy. The fact that he may be pissed does not
make him wrong.

 _While Twitter is the market leader, it does not have a monopoly on "status
updates". The last time I checked my Facebook feed, it was full of the same
type of updates that Twitter provides, and Facebook is pretty popular. Google+
is also a well funded competitor to Twitter._

Again, I fail to see how is this related to my post.

~~~
slantyyz
>> Again, I fail to see how is this related to my post.

So to requote your original post.

>> >> The world isn't entitled to anything Twitter builds.

>> Nobody says it is.

Let me put it more succinctly. My interpretation is that the OP is basically
saying that the world _is_ entitled to anything Twitter builds.

My subsequent quotes weren't so much related to rebutting you but to highlight
the parts of the OP that I felt supported my point.

~~~
icebraining
I understand your interpretation; I just don't see how is it supported by the
article, particularly by the points you've quoted.

