

Call for a Better Web - markup
http://callforabetterweb.org/

======
ryanwaggoner
Sigh...where to start?

First, I applaud your passion for making the web a better place, and for being
willing to put yourself out there and be open with your views.

That said, there's a number of problems with what you're saying and the
proposed solution, but let me point out just a few:

1\. Normal people don't care. Seriously, my mom uses a handful of websites and
doesn't really care about any of the problems you mention. If a solution were
offered and it was more convenient, she might use it, but it's just not a big
deal to her.

2\. Identity and data centralization seem to offer a lot of security risks and
the philosophical problem of putting all that data into the hands of one
company, or even just a few companies. Making an open, distributed standard
sounds good, but in practice, I think a few companies (Google, Microsoft,
Facebook, Amazon) would end up handling the gateway role for 95% of users,
which puts you in an even more dangerous position.

3\. The big players have little incentive to lower barriers to entry, and you
have a chicken/egg problem in trying to force them to 'adapt or die'. Also,
see #1.

4\. If OpenID and OAuth aren't working (agree on the 1st, not sure on the
2nd), why not, and why would this be any different?

5\. I don't see _any_ way of implementing something like this over the next 50
years without either a) government mandate, or b) every internet giant getting
involved. As I pointed out above, the internet giants are unlikely to do this,
and the government getting more involved in the web is the last thing we need.

I think some of the problems you pointed out are legit, but I'm not sure that
this kind of a system is really any better. It seems you'd be swapping one set
of problems for another, and the new set of problems would seem to make the
web extremely vulnerable to being controlled by a few large organizations, or
the government. Over time, I see this kind of centralization and "perfect
system" model resulting in stagnation and oppression.

~~~
jnorthrop
"Sigh...where to start?"

I wish you wouldn't have started off with that. It's insulting and doesn't add
to the discussion. Just because you see the author's conclusions as somewhat
naive (which you've articulated) doesn't make it OK to belittle his effort.
FWIW, Other than that snide start it's a thoughtful post.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Wow...I really didn't mean it this way at all, but now that you point it out,
I can see what you mean.

What I meant was that I feel the same way about some of the issues he raised,
and I think that there are lots of large-scale improvements that could be made
on the web, but the scope of the problem makes it overwhelming to deal with.

The "where to start" piece in particular sounds bad, but I just meant that I
wasn't sure how to articulate the problems I see with his solution. I get that
it doesn't come off that way, especially now that I read it. Apologies to the
author.

I didn't mean to belittle his effort in the least. It's a noble task to try
and effect change in such a large domain because you believe in it.

~~~
markup
No need to apology, I did read that premise the way you explained it right now
-- might have been naive now that I think about it. ;-)

------
patio11
Hiya. Mind if I make some suggestions on how you can write better in
professional communications?

Lead with your strengths. Your first paragraph, which is the most important
one you will write because it is the one that determines whether the rest of
your piece gets read, is filled with self-inflicted strikes against you.

 _English is not my mother tongue and I’m not a great writer, so I am
borrowing the words JFK used in_

There is a place for modesty and self-effacement. It is not during proposals.

The quote from JFK does not give me a reason to entrust you with money. That
suggests cutting it. Ruthlessly eliminate any distraction from the goal.

 _First of all: I to say I have applied for Winter 2010 YC funding with this
idea (still have to make a video). The problem is I don’t think this is gonna
get funded for two reasons: I have no team mates (YC tends to fund teams
composed by 2-3 people) and I don’t have any solid idea on how to make it
profitable._

Here you are again telling me how you're not the right man for the job.

 _So since my desire for a better Web to live and work in is kinda huge I am
writing this article hoping that maybe it’s going to be an inspiration for
someone else, or act as a catalyst. Or just to state the obvious. Whatever._

In addition to not being the right man for the job, you're diffident about
even wanting to do the job. You are not projecting the image of a driven,
with-it individual who is going to take a difficult technical, social, and
marketing problem and solve it, making very rich rich men out of everyone
associated with the project.

Look how differently your first paragraph reads from my reimagining of it:

The Internet as we know it is _broken_. Dozens of accounts per user -- broken!
Web services that can't speak to each other -- broken! Our lives and friends
scattered over a hundred web sites -- broken! Our identities owned by service
providers -- broken!

We can fix the Internet. It will not be easy. Worthwhile things rarely are.
The fix is a federated identity gateway, built out of technologies which are
already accepted and in common use. The rest of this proposal will outline a
sketch of what the federated identity gateway is, how it fixes the Internet,
and why the first group who succeeds in building it will realize profits
beyond the dreams of avarice.

Commentary: start with the problem, offer a solution, whet people's appetite
for reading about the solution. Don't focus on yourself, most particularly not
on your faults.

~~~
inimino
I felt an honesty and openness in the article which your rewrite (which I'd
probably have stopped reading right around "dreams of avarice") lacks. The
article isn't a plea for funding but an attempt to start a dialog about how to
solve the perceived problem.

It's not all about money, and "making very rich rich men out of everyone
associated with the project" is antithetical to the motivations conveyed by
the piece.

------
pg
I'd like to remind everyone of a rule related to this: please don't submit
your YC application to HN. The reason is simply that if everyone did this,
they'd drown out the ordinary content: if you divide the number of
applications we get by the number of days between now and Oct 26, the result
is many per day.

I left this one alive because it's arguably just over the line. It's really
more of an essay that mentions they're applying for winter 2010. But I took
the ref to YC out of the title.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Is that the only reason? If so, would it be possible to offer a public place
to view apps that was separate from the main page? Judging by the popularity
of the "review my startup" posts, I bet tons of people would be interested in
reading them.

~~~
pg
Honestly, I don't know. That problem was bad enough that I didn't think
further about what other bad (or good) consequences there might be of letting
people make applications public.

My gut tells me it would be a bad idea. I sure wouldn't have done it as a
founder, and if only lame groups did this, there would be no upside, only
downside. But I could be wrong; I haven't thought more about it than what I
just wrote.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
What if there was a high karma threshold for viewing the apps? Like 1000 or
something.

~~~
jwhitlark
I think 1k is too high. > 100 would probably be enough to get rid of trolls.
It's not hard to get to that point, but you have to put in legitimate effort
to do so.

------
dejan
I am glad to see some more ambitious initiative coming from Italy. Italian
culture is not really entrepreneurial (I've spent the past year in Como). That
would explain the "one founder" issue you're having.

I like the questions you are raising. I have written about them before and
have started playing with my own approach. It is a big project, but unlike
yourself, I would not be concerned much about applying to YC with it. YC is
not a research incubator but a business, and no matter how cool the people
seem to be, they're after the money. Nothing bad, it's just capitalism. YC
makes most of the money from the VCs, so they need you to have something that
will sell (to VCs). It's a very smart business model that they're running.

If you are really passionate about these issues, you need to build a prototype
or specification and throw it out on the web as an open source to get support.
I see the possibility of a viable business model in the authentication scheme.

That said, I disagree with your approach to tackling the problems you listed.
Your issues are valid, but not the most important. You have not identified the
core problem. Consider this. You publish something on the web, the website
goes bankrupt or decides to shut down. Your data goes down with it. Your
article, your comment, your photo, blog post, this comment I'm writing. We've
given all the power of data preservation to the web sites. The web is not
preserving it self. If we see it at the _biggest library_ of all, just imagine
this, every day a part of it gets burned down.

Making data independent of servers will solve most of the issues you raised.
Your address book and contacts belong to servers and web apps, as you said, so
you don't manage them. If you were to own the data yourself, and the webapps
only managed and used your data, you would have a single point of
authentication, single address book, single stream of your produced content.

Think of the desktop vs web app paradigm. We need a platform for applications
on the web that will be based on user content. You own your data, but the
webapp only uses it to add functionalities. You install a webapp onto your
data just as on the desktop. You delete an application (or detach from your
data). This would be a new paradigm of the web, where all the control is with
the user, the user base is unique on the web without clustering, and
applications are just that.

Emails are nothing else but user generated content. We tend to see it
differently, but it is absolutely the same, the servers own it. I wrote
recently an article about emails describing how much we don't have control
over them:

<http://www.aleveo.com/ideas/decentralized-email>

You do not own your emails. The problem I want to stress is that, as long as
someone else owns them, you don't. If no one owns them, you might claim full
control. It is the benefit of decentralization.

If you take a route of making another central point of aggregation and data
control, you have simply contributed the system you want to change. I would
suggest you start thinking in the decentralized direction.

As you said, the web has issues, but you can't build on top of it if you want
to change, you need to go lower.

We can take this further if interested dejan dot strbac at aleveo dot com, I
will publish the whole thing on www.aleveo.com when I am done with the draft.

I wish you much success with the YC application, I couldn't agree more that
such fundamental projects need to be supported rather than useless web
bubbles.

------
timlind
What the author is hinting toward need not be centralized entity that stores
all your data, the way I read it his aims were quite the opposite.

He is right that we should be able to have this centralized data source, but
it would likely be one source for our contacts that we want on our phone, one
other source for our online connections of a certain type, and a separate
source for our photos, etc. What is necessary is one point where we can find
out where the user stores his different data, an shared understanding of what
the different data is and how it is represented.

I also applaud you for recognizing that the way things work is less than
ideal, and for making a noise about it, because the lack of that noise is what
deters people that might have the same thought pop into their head from
continuing the train of thought and acting on it.

To those who continue to point out that the author didn't make a great
proposal, he wasn't trying to make one, in fact he explicitly said that he's
only trying to make a noise, and although he wrote as though he was looking
for financial support in his idea, I think his confusion between proposal and
making a noise about it was a decision to show that he believes in his idea
enough to take the responsibility for it if no one else will, which is a
necessary show of belief, because these problems have existed for ages, and
then things like openID came along acting like they're about to solve them,
and then completely miss the point, so I'm sure he, like myself, believes that
people need to hear a louder message to counter their belief that these
existing efforts are doing something about the problem, they aren't. Yes, what
you say is indeed a more ideal picture of the web, it will have it's
downsides, so it probably won't feel the way you've see it in your dreams, but
if your sole purpose was to make a noise about this issue, to point out that
those responsible for the cutting edge of this area have been found wanting
then you may rest assured that you have made your point.

I have also recognized this problem a long time ago and have been working for
a little while in the area of social networking systems and this has indeed
been part of my ideal picture as well, so hopefully it helps you sleep better
at night knowing someone agrees with you and is working on it.

Cheers.

------
omouse
_a system you would put your stuff on. You would then be able to authorize
(think OAuth) people, websites, organizations and services to access subsets
of your data._

A system for personal data... why does that sound familiar? I think it's the
word personal...OH! I know! _Personal Computers_! Remember those silly things
where you could own your data and run whatever the fuck you wanted and weren't
a slave to random updates made on some remote server?

------
ctb9
Sorry, for some reason this post touched a nerve, and not even because I
disagreed with a lot of what was said. Like ryanwaggoner said, props on
putting this out there, its obvious you care a lot about the future of the
internet and are genuinely trying to make it better.

My problem is with the attitude that the internet is 'broken' and that we
should just redo it. That, and the suggestion that someone should give you
money to play around with hypothetical e-utopias.

Anyway, my rebuttals:

1\. Hundreds...really? If you regularly use more than 100 accounts, that puts
you in the top .1% of internet users. Normal people just let firefox remember
their passwords and also probably spend more time outside.

2\. API's, facebook connect, openid. If I meet someone at a conference, I
spend 30 seconds each adding them to twitter, linkedin and maybe facebook. Do
I really need (or want) to automatically see their flickr feed?

3\. Again, the multiple modes of content consumption is perfect. I'll friend
you on facebook if I care about you socially, I'll add you to my rss if your
blog interests me, and I'll follow you on twitter if you're not terribly
annoying. We all get to apply filters to everyone else.

4\. Totally agree, improved data portability would be great.

5\. "We should stop building new social networks, services and adding entropy
to the system. We should stop trying to patch a model that has proven multiple
times to be broken by design."

Umm, what?

I couldn't be more excited about the future of web apps and services. The
internet is one of the only places where the free market is truly at work. Its
glorious. Entropy is a problem, which is why we've seen recent efforts
directed at reducing it, but at the end of the day the web, like any market,
is about value creation and capture. You don't even mention capturing value,
which is why pg, or anyone else, is not likely to fund you.

------
marc28443
I think you are conflating a call for action with an idea for a startup. To be
more effective you should focus on one of these only.

As for your proposed solution, such services already exists, i.e. webfinger
which Google may be supporting in the future.

So the challenge is really, how to enable widespread adoption for webfinger or
something similar. If you have an ingenious idea how to support that, lets
hear it. Because you are right, it would mean a lot of progress for the web.

------
Nervetattoo
I think just about everyone here will agree that what you describe is more of
an ideal web that we want. However, the problem is finding motivation for
regular users to sacrifice, and if they wont then you need the big
corporations to sacrifice to get there. How can we find motivation for either
part?

I think this will be an extremely long process that is slowly happening on a
minor scale, but that we will never see a fully open web - ever - just because
of the lack of motivation from its central actors: users and providers.

Things like Wikipedia, OpenID/OAuth, FluidDB, more open API-s (although we
don't own the data) are all pointers to the web maybe being more semi-
transparent in the future. I mean, things are getting more open, but it will
simply never be fully open, no matter how much us developers and geeks want
it. If however someone like google or apple were to find a model were they
could still earn their money while being transparent and open, then I would
start believing.

The best way to facilitate this process is by doing your part by implementing
your site/service in an open and transparent way. If you get successful people
will take notice.

------
tdavis
Call me crazy, but I like the way things are. Having huge, centralized bodies
with easy access to all of my information sounds awful. The government knows
enough about me already, why would I trust I private corporation with _all_ of
my data? What happens when they're hacked? How about when somebody decides to
make millions illegally selling identities?

Facebook can keep my photos and status updates and pokes. Twitter can have all
my 140-character sets of vapid bullshit. Those things don't matter. I don't
want Globocorp having access to every bit of information about me.

~~~
marc28443
This information should not need to reside on the net and be owned by a
private corporation. One of the problems mentioned in the article is that
every individual should own his/her data.

I think to adress the issues correctly all this info should be stored locally
and/or on your phone.

~~~
markup
Yeah, that's more or less what I'd like it to work, but I think using phones
or other devices that may get offline would be unworkable (at least in the
present). You could, however, act as your own gateway just like you can do
with OpenID right now

------
RyanMcGreal
What the author missed: the internet is by definition a _decentralized_ and
aggressively _pluralized_ network, whereas what he's calling for is one single
centralized system with a canonical API for every single person on the network
and - here's the kicker - that every single person on the network agrees to
adopt.

------
nuweborder
This is right up my alley. I applaud you for writing this piece, and putting
it out there as to what is wrong with the web, and what needs to happen. This
issue is that the current web model is being regurgitated through all these
sites that think they are doing something new and innovative, and are actually
just repeating the same form that is proven to be arcaic, and does not work
well anymore. We cannot expect a different outcome, by producing the same old
actions. Its time to truly be innovative and come up with something different,
more efficient, and that gives more power to the user. We often attempt to do
this over the years, and then we revert back to the old format.

------
adw
A lot of this reads like the FOAF, DiSo and Semantic Web visions. None of
those has got much traction in the market: my gut feeling is that there is a
market in portable identity somewhere, but no-one's worked out what it is yet.

I'd be tempted to start with the mobile companies, though: they already know
who I am, where I am and how to bill me. Feels like a natural place to add
authentication and identity broking...

------
anatoli
Basically you're proposing a much more involved OpenID. I'm sorry, but beyond
everything that was already pointed out, you also clearly don't know enough
about the space that you want to "revolutionize".

Hint: what you propose isn't all that new, you're still suffering from the
same chicken and egg problem.

------
psnajder
All you have to do is create a network under these guidelines. One system to
do whatever you can in that awesome system that does a batch of particular
things. Then you invite your friends and say, look, you can do all these
awesome things just by being in my awesome system/network! They, understanding
its awesomeness, will have to join. You offer them even more things that are
progressively more awesome. And more people join. And more people surf under
one unique sign-in.

One night you get home and feel happy, satisfied, knowing that your network of
users has finally experienced the greatest possible, most efficient, most
awesome system ever invented. And before you go to sleep, you pick up a phone
and call your mom to tell her how happy you are.

------
lo_fye
Good God, man, have you gone looney? You say the internet is broken because
authentication is a pain? You say there should be just one social network? Try
telling that to the people making boatloads of cash today.

The internet IS democracy. You can't tell it what it should and shouldn't do,
or how it should or shouldn't be. It gets to decide that on its own.

The solution is kinda simple. Don't try to control the internet. It has never
worked, and it will never work.

Instead, focus on making OpenID & OAuth easier to implement. Most sites don't
_want_ to manage authentication & account creation. They would love to farm it
out, but right now, it requires a lot of work to do so.

Instead, take a cue from Plaxo: focus on making a better Identity & Privacy
control service. Fill it with simple APIs, and let other sites use it. Make it
come complete with lifestream feeds & webhooks. Find a way to use Facebook
mail without logging into Facebook.

>>You could have multiple profiles on multiple gateways so that you could have
multiple identities if you needed them

Doesn't that defeat your entire stated purpose? Now we're back to 2009:
multiple logins on multiple sites.

>>either support the construction of this model or to force the startups you
found to embrace this model

Are you TRYING to break the internet? You can't force anything! The internet
IS evolution. The internet IS democracy. The internet IS freedom. The internet
IS bottom-up, not top-down.

This ain't gonna work.

Build something. If it really is better, people will flock to it. If not, they
won't.

There is no force, only do.

~~~
markup
_You say the internet is broken because authentication is a pain? You say
there should be just one social network?_

I didn't say the Internet is broken because authentication is a pain. I said
the Web has been created to deal (and access) hypertexts. Nowadays the WWW is
used for much more. People use it to shop, keep contacts with friends living
far away, some use it to share their "lives" and the current state of art is
far from being functional to the scope. To my personal point of view, it is
broken by design when it comes to these scopes. And far from me trying to say
there should be just a social network.

The gateway I idealize is not a giant bucket (or a silo) you'd fill with your
stuff, that's exactly what I want to avoid. The "gateway" would just be a
place you use to authenticate and authorize apps to access subsets of your
data. Some of it (anagraphical data for the most part) would be stored on the
gateway, and other stuff would be in much more appropiate places. Flickr,
Twitter, Blogger, Facebook, et cetera. The model I idealize would be a common
layer to build thing on, nothing more and nothing less.

------
jasonkester
One of the cool things about the first web was that it was so simple that you
could essentially do _anything_ with it. It was originally meant to help
people publish their research papers, and now here we are 20 years later doing
all this stuff that the original authors never intended.

That's the good thing about it.

This guy's proposal is all about formalizing a bunch of things that we do on
the web _today_. But there's no reason to assume that 20 years from now we'll
be compiling lists of our friends online and authorizing random strangers to
follow the 140-character random thoughts that pop into our head. Or shortening
URLs or any of the thousands of other things we do online every day that the
guys at CERN never expected us to do in 1990.

As such, the only thing this "new web" can possibly do is get stale. As a
thought experiment, imagine we'd built it in 2004, and it was all about
helping people create Blogs. Or we built it in 1999, so it could help you
"optimize the internet" by installing spyware on your computer. Worse still,
imagine the original creators put in a bunch of codified methodology to
publish and critique research papers, thus making it better suited for the
task it was originally intended. What exactly would we be doing with that
extraneous functionality today?

So yeah, it's cool that we need a fresh start and all. Just make sure it's
capable of expanding beyond the silly OpenID/oauth issues that bother us
today.

------
al3x
A little proofreading and peer review would have gone a long way.

We do, eventually, need different models of sharing identity and personal data
on the web, but this is fairly incoherent.

~~~
markup
I can't really imagine a better peer review other than hacker news to be
honest. However I wish I'd got a more replies when I tried to get skilled
people to read this (expecially from the english mothertongue), but that
didn't happen.

------
apotheon
Two points:

1\. If we assume for a moment that the quoted JFK speech was actually written
by JFK (and not by a speechwriter), you've actually proven you're better at
penning inspiring words than JFK was. The sentiments in the JFK speech are
rousing and inspiring enough that they overcame the wording at the time they
were uttered to the world, but the phrasing itself is clumsy and distracting.
"And the other things"? Seriously? I've never liked that speech, but I like
the passion expressed in this call for a better Web, and it is not as marred
as JFK's wording by a long shot.

2\. I think a far better idea than using gateway providers is coming up with a
way to store the data locally (on your own computer) and authorize (or not)
particular Websites to access particular parts of it. You have to develop a
protocol that can be used by visited Websites to access the data when they are
authorized to do so, anyway; why not make it a protocol that definitively
keeps the stored data in your own hands? Either way, the real challenge will
be getting the visited Websites to refrain from storing the data in violation
of your wishes once they get the data, but if I got to keep the data in
encrypted form on my own computer I'd be much more likely to want to get on
board with the idea.

------
extension
Don't be so quick to dismiss OpenID and other open data initiatives just
because they haven't solved the problem overnight. They are making slow but
steady progress, which is all that you can really ask for with such ambitious
goals, and all that it takes to achieve them, if you have a little patience.

When I first got my OpenID, this site was the only use I could find for it.
Then I could use it on Stackoverflow. Then I could use it to comment on half
the blogs in the world with Disqus. And now I can use it with Facebook
(somehow.. I haven't got that working yet). This is a remarkable amount of
progress for about one year.

The big players are not as averse to this as you make them out to be. Google
in particular seems to be open to the idea of open data. They are also making
Wave which I could see having a huge democratizing effect on the internet.

I started developing for the web a decade ago and back then, the only way to
"share" data from another site was to scrape it, and that was considered
hostile. Now everyone has feeds and APIs and the open standards are clearly
catching on. I've seen enough to convince me that this trend will continue
until the technorati are satisfied. It may take another ten years but that'll
do.

------
inimino
The main problem I see is that there is so little detail that I'm not sure
what's being proposed. Many of the commenters here also seem to have varying
ideas about what's being suggested. To have a chance, you need a clear vision,
clearly articulated. The hard part will be finding a realistic roadmap to
where you want to end up from where the Web is now, but that can come later.

As an example of the vagueness I'm talking about, you write "We would have
some kind of gateway that would act as an identity provider (think OpenID) and
a system you would put your stuff on." This doesn't say how this system is
run, who owns it, who pays for it, or what the difference is from similar
proposals that have already been tried.

The passion for making things better comes through loud and clear but the
solution conveyed isn't much more specific than "let's make things better".

------
chmike
This matches project. See <http://www.disnetwork.info>. I have the technical
solution and nearly finished implementing it. I'm currently working on the
protocol documentation, which means in depth review of it. Some key
information to described the system are not published on the web site. It is
just the outline and some detailed discussion of some aspects of it.

Development is unfortunately slow because I'm bootstrapping. Who would invest
in a project equivalent to inventing the web ? If you know anyone, please let
me know.

Note that this technology can't be owned and should become an open standard.
But this is not incompatible with earning money from it. So I have a business
model, but it is hard to predict if it can succeed.

------
mixmax
For this to work you would have to convince all (or at least a lot) of
established players to do things differently than they do now. They will only
do so if they see other major players doing it. It's a classical chicken and
egg problem.

The technology is the easy part.

~~~
apotheon
Until we have the technology, there's nothing to use to convince anyone to go
along with the idea.

------
icey
Let's play dress-up for a moment. I'll put on my investor's hat.

You are going to have problems with funding for two reasons (you mentioned
one, and I'll disregard the no co-founders thing for a moment):

A) No clear path to monetization and

B) I can't see a reason for any site to go through the effort of adopting the
technology you're suggesting, even if it was already written and easy to use.
NIH syndrome is very big amongst companies for good reason - if they own all
the technology front to back, then they can change it any way they see fit,
and not have to worry about someone else's changes.

------
jokull
What we need is a nice way for users to allow applications to their data in
other applications. A common API and a common UX interaction element.
Something like Facebook applications have ... you click a submit button,
Facebook asks if you want to allow the application to do this or that, click
"Allow" and BAM!

------
freetard
> Do you think you can sign up for a Google or Facebook account with your own
> OpenID?

Yes you can on facebook <http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/05/facebooks-openid-
live/> Make some better research next time.

------
peterbraden
No - the internet is not broken. The fact that we are communicating across it
attests to that.

What needs to happen is for it to evolve to solve these problems. There are
many projects aiming to do just that. We are getting there, but progress is
slow.

------
edw519
_We should act now. It should be done independently from the big Internet
companies_

Here's where OP may have difficulties. He wants to make a major change that
affects a lot of people. Better to dance _with_ the elephants than in spite of
them. Just ask Loopt.

------
luigi
I'm pretty sure this is what Chi.mp aims to do, but I haven't really explored
their service beyond signing up over a year ago:

<http://chi.mp/>

------
aandarian
what about the moneyz. I believe that until the financial pipelines are laid
out for this connected scenario, there will not be enough incentive for the
big companies to cooperate over this "problem." So many referral fees,
affiliate fees, and more to cut up. If data is what commands my 2-3x multiple,
why would i give it away unless i know i can get a guaranteed 15%+ roi through
giving it away.

Lastly, for problems 1-5 - FACEBOOK! No brainer that they will charge for FB
connect soon.

------
gaustin
Sounds a lot like Vendor Relationship Management:
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/projectvrm/Main_Page>

------
amitu
My aborted (due to lack of time) attempt to do the same:
<http://code.google.com/p/slash-social/w/list>.

------
sanj
Why doesn't FB do most of this?

<http://blog.luckycal.com/?p=145>

------
Invisible_today
I do agree with your thoughts.. Infact I m working on such kind of web model.

------
pj
This sounds like Microsoft Passport's vision from years ago...

------
TweedHeads
We are attacking the messenger when we should be attacking the problem.

Forget the messenger for a moment, if he is good or not for funding, if he has
writing problems, or if he is dumb or retard.

Lets focus on the problem please, can we provide solutions?

Even solutions on how to fix proposed solutions that don't work?

------
nato1138
clear and honest ideas! I feel there is a natural force that will push things
_sorta_ in that direction. Re-factoring happens more and more.. Take
gravatar.com, for instance. I agree with some of the other posters, however,
that people put up with inefficiencies all over the place all the time. It may
not be necessary to have an efficient space on the web. Jungle vs. well-oiled
machine...

