

We Need a Social Web OS - orianmarx
http://www.orianmarx.com/2012/08/02/we-need-a-social-web-os/

======
acqq
You know, this thing called OS is a thing that makes your files be actually
saved on the hard disk, or when you plug the USB stick there, or that makes
for programs possible to use TCP and not program the hardware of your network
card, or that makes the letters visible on your screen.

From a point of view of an OS developer, what you talk about are still just
applications, and that has nothing to do with an OS.

You're just making a confusion if you're trying to invent the new meaning of
the names. Is that your goal?

~~~
lukifer
The actual term they are looking for is social web _protocol_.

As others have pointed out, though, an open social protocol would quickly
degenerate into a wretched hive of ads and spam. The underlying problem to
solve is identity, which the existing social networks attempt to solve through
real-name policies, social conventions, and pro-active policing, to various
degrees of success.

This is going to be unpopular to say on HN, but there would be upsides to a
government-issued internet ID card, that allowed to someone to declare
unambiguously which actual human they are (ideally on an opt-in basis).

Would the inevitable abuses of this power be worth the benefits? Probably not.
But authenticated identity is the core problem that needs to be solved for an
open social protocol to really work; without it, you're trying to craft TCP/IP
without IP addresses.

~~~
acqq
What would be the upsides of the government issued internet ID in your opinion
please? Compare such an ID with the stuff everybody already has in his wallet.

~~~
lukifer
Keep in mind, I meant it in an abstract sense; we could just as easily use
existing government IDs (state driver's license, SSN, etc) rather than create
a new one. Hardware biometrics are an option (in theory), and would also
eliminate the terrible security practices inherent to email+password.

What matters is not the unique identifier; the real benefit is the threat of
punishment for fraud, and the "single source of truth", whether that's a
government, or something else. We have this, for better or worse, in other
aspects of communication infrastructure (names, addresses, phone numbers), but
there is no equivalent for the web (except perhaps for domains). I'm glad that
an anonymous information-sharing network exists, but I think a non-anonymous
flavor (AOL : www :: Facebook : ???) would be a societal boon as well.

------
mburns
Sounds like what the Firefox (and Chrome) devs have been busy creating.

<http://socialapi.net/>

<http://jbalogh.me/2012/01/30/push-notifications/>

<http://www.webrtc.org/>

<https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebActivities>

<https://persona.org/>

~~~
orianmarx
Yup, I'm not trying to usurp this work. I'm trying to support it and also
learn more about it. Thanks for the links!

------
dglassan
Oh, you want to 'refactor the internet'? Go ahead. I'll make some popcorn.

------
bpatrianakos
Total jibberish. There is no need for any more social any things let alone a
"social web OS", whatever that means. I'm sure the average Internet reader
thought this sounded smart with all the fluffy language and big words but in
the end it was a lot of words with little substance. The web already is
social. So what now? We rebuild the Internet pretty much like it is now but we
change the names of the protocols, languages, and frameworks? I have a hard
time understanding if this is a call for an open source Facebook created by
Tim Berners Lee or if someone's been reading about App.net and wants to get in
on some of that action. This kind of came off like someone rehashing Dalton
Caldwell's idea except in a really convoluted way.

What's going on with what get on the front page lately?

------
Dirlewanger
Social this, social that...can this bubble just pop already?

------
arpit
My thoughts: <http://www.arpitonline.com/blog/2012/08/02/open-for-value/>

------
el_cuadrado
We really, really do not.

~~~
drivingmenuts
Well, all the astroturfers, adspammers and sockpuppets need an OS to play on.

But yes, for everyone else, I agree with you.

PS. If someone does create one, I suggest "Sockpuppet OS" for the name.

------
nuttendorfer
No, we don't need any more social. We need less.

------
rshm
We are all so eager for adoption before the implementation. Big things on
internet were not made wide adoption guaranteed. as @dglassan said,
"Refactoring the internet is not the solution". Create something, invite small
group, dev friends to take part. Either it is an api, platform or an
application. If it is any good, it will get picked up for the wide adoption.

~~~
orianmarx
I'm with you on this. I'm looking for implementation, which is why I'm writing
about ideas. Nobody can adopt something that doesn't exist.

------
redorb
I would frame it as a social vos virtual operating system.. or social
dashboard. Its a good idea, monetization may be hard but its a needed product
that should generate long page views.

Idea, long page views might make watching a video ad before the dashboard
appears acceptable..paid version no ad..

------
pspeter3
Assuming that we could seriously do this, I feel like the Mobile OS's and
desktop OS's like Mountain Lion, elementary, and Ubuntu do a fairly good job
of integrating with the internet that it would be hard to drive adoption of
something else.

------
Robby2012
what if this is being made in this moment?

------
amirmansour
No we don't.

------
drivebyacct2
This is just vague and way too large an effort. Plus many of these goals are
being embodied by current html5 efforts.

~~~
orianmarx
It is a large effort, which is precisely why the post is relatively vague :)

