[HN Gopher] The Web's Missing Interoperability
___________________________________________________________________
The Web's Missing Interoperability
Author : davidmckenna
Score : 109 points
Date : 2021-03-02 15:24 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (stratechery.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (stratechery.com)
| pjettter wrote:
| It's not the web, it's computing in general that has not evolved
| in the right direction. A grid is not a grid is not a grid. An
| image is not an image is not an image. Etc. So rather than fixing
| the web, fix computing. It will fix the web too. If not, the web
| is even more in trouble.
| noizejoy wrote:
| $technology {web, computing, ...} is a mere reflection of the
| dynamics in our species.
| jacobobryant wrote:
| Heh, I published a post in a similar vein just today[1]. Lately
| I've been thinking the way to do it is have everyone publish a
| (paginated) Atom feed with all their public content interactions.
| So each item in the feed would be something like "published this
| blog post", "liked this tweet", "thinks this comment was written
| in bad faith", etc. And "follows this person" with a link to that
| person's atom feed. Then if you want to build a search
| engine/social network/recommender system, you can get started by
| crawling and indexing a bunch of feeds.
|
| I'd like to make a web app (probably on replit since it makes
| self-hosting dead easy) that has plugins for a bunch of other
| sites. so you connect to all your other accounts, and then this
| app imports your data and publishes it to a single feed for you.
|
| Obviously starting audience would be programmers, but I bet it
| could expand to a general audience too.
|
| [1] https://news.findka.com/p/we-need-user-centric-data
| mathgladiator wrote:
| I've considered this perspective as well from a lower level.
| I'm a huge fan of gossip-style communication, and I've wondered
| why all my data is shredded across various databases when it
| could be all located within a single giant JSON on my phone,
| and then I could just gossip a version to my friends.
|
| The key is privacy at the data-layer, and I have a start with
| my programming language for board games: http://www.adama-
| lang.org/
| beardedetim wrote:
| I've been noodling this idea for a few years. I think it's a
| great idea and it being based on Atom/RSS is a great move.
|
| The problem, I have found, is no one wants to pay for hosting.
| No one wants to self host. And by no one I mean no one that is
| using Facebook /Twitter / Insta / etc. and for this to really
| work, I think you need everyone hosting their own "log".
|
| Interested in seeing more work done in this space and am glad
| to see others feel the same as I do.
| jacobobryant wrote:
| That's a big reason why I'm excited about repl.it. You can
| self-host a github repo in about 2 clicks (not including
| account setup). I could see it increasing the reach of self-
| hosted apps a lot.
|
| Actually I made a little proof of concept for this a week
| ago: https://github.com/jacobobryant/Feedstuff
| pdonis wrote:
| I don't think the issue is hosting the app itself, it's
| hosting each user's data. For the vast majority of users,
| hosting their own data is not even on the radar. They
| assume that whatever app they are using is hosting their
| data, and the only price they will accept for doing that is
| "free".
| jacobobryant wrote:
| The app would include a database (perhaps sqlite), so
| that shouldn't be an issue unless I'm misunderstanding
| you. you can host it for free on replit already (albeit
| with sleeping/cold starts)
| pdonis wrote:
| _> The app would include a database (perhaps sqlite)_
|
| Meaning an sqlite database hosted with the app's code?
| How will "host it for free" scale when your app goes
| viral and you have a million plus (or a billion plus)
| users?
| jacobobryant wrote:
| It'll scale because it's self-hosted. You don't serve
| everyone with the same app instance; everyone runs their
| own instance.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> It 'll scale because it's self-hosted. You don't serve
| everyone with the same app instance; everyone runs their
| own instance._
|
| So everyone has their own free hosting account with
| repl.it and runs an app instance on it? Yes, technically
| that's "free" as in "no cost", but it's not "free" as in
| "no effort". The latter is the kind of "free" that
| Facebook users expect.
| jacobobryant wrote:
| It's hardly more effort than making a Facebook account,
| and replit is still young--it's only going to get easier.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> It 's hardly more effort than making a Facebook
| account_
|
| I'm not talking about the effort involved in opening an
| account. I'm talking about the effort involved in
| managing one's own instance of an app. That is not zero,
| and nobody, not repl.it or anyone else, can magically
| make it zero. But it is zero for Facebook users, because
| they aren't managing anything; Facebook is.
|
| If, OTOH, your idea is that repl.it does all the managing
| (what happens if the server hosting the app goes down?
| how is the data backed up? etc., etc.), then we're back
| to the scaling problem: how do you scale that to a huge
| number of users without either not being free, or
| adopting the same business model that Facebook has (the
| avoiding of which was supposed to be the reason for doing
| all this in the first place)?
| phkahler wrote:
| >> The problem, I have found, is no one wants to pay for
| hosting. No one wants to self host.
|
| Self hosting needs to be as easy as plugging a box into your
| router. This means some type of DNS or other way to find your
| node given all the ISPs failure to provide fixed IPs. Also a
| super easy management method and access controls (public,
| private, friends).
|
| I have a lot more thoughts on that.
| beardedetim wrote:
| Do you think there needs to be the infra to support the
| self hosting or the "killer app" first to drive the early
| adopters?
|
| I think an internet that is mostly self-hosted is a healthy
| one and unlocks a lot of things I've been noodling with
| over the years. I'm hopeful someone smarter than me is
| close to getting us there.
| hertzrat wrote:
| Interesting concept for sure. Is there a revenue model to
| attract top influencers? Maybe just links to a collection of
| Patreon-likes?
| jacobobryant wrote:
| hm, no idea. I haven't thought about revenue models much
| since I've envisioned this more as a grass-roots thing than a
| startup opportunity. I think the main thing would be just
| making it dead easy to get started. You wouldn't necessarily
| need to jump start a new network since the whole point of
| this is to be interoperable with existing networks.
|
| A good first step might be making a personal site generator.
| Put in links to your twitter/youtub/substack/medium/whatever
| accounts, and then you get a nice looking site with all your
| content in one place. Maybe throw in a subscribe button so
| people can get email digests of all your content.
|
| and then, almost as a side effect, anyone who uses the site
| generator also is publishing it all as an atom feed.
| mariushn wrote:
| How about Facebook, which requires an account to view the
| person posts? How would those be read? Besides maybe
| requiring user & password and logging in with a headless
| browser. Not sure if Instagram/Pinterest require a login
| too.
| jacobobryant wrote:
| Entering in username + password is probably the only
| feasible way. Suboptimal for sure, but worked for mint...
|
| In practice, this would probably start out with plugins
| for only sites that make data public. Not perfect, but
| still useful.
| beardedetim wrote:
| I think the money is in the aggregator. Everyone creates
| their own "log" so the noise is crazy. You follow
| "influencers" or go to aggregate sites that only vet info,
| not produce it.
|
| You could have the aggregate behind a paywall, you could have
| donations or ads as well.
| hertzrat wrote:
| He talks about about how privacy laws like those around contact
| lists are bad because make it harder for new social media
| companies to arise. Seems like a bad trade off for everyone but
| investors and for future users of The Crystal Network that I keep
| joking I will create: a network where you are rewarded with
| healing crystals in the mail for soothing one another on the
| platform, creating a veritable lattice of support
| olivermarks wrote:
| Seeing Tim O'Reilly speaking at one of his web 2.0 summits around
| 2009 about the urgency of preventing a few companies/people
| monopolizing everything comes into my mind regularly when I see
| tech monopolist oligarchs swaggering around and being feted by a
| fawning media.
|
| We ignored the need to regulate to enable open innovation and
| interoperability and allowed walled gardens of unprecedented size
| to be imposed on smaller businesses, from Apple, Amazon &
| Alphabet and on, unfair advantage and a disaster for smaller
| business evolution
| jefftk wrote:
| As the OP points out, the regulation that we are getting, so
| far, benefits these walled gardens by prioritizing privacy over
| interoperability.
| olivermarks wrote:
| Yes it's actually getting a lot worse!
|
| Had a long discussion the other day about Amazon and where we
| went wrong as a society. Short version, Amazon should have
| been regulated to facilitate existing small specialist
| businesses supply chain and delivery, not directly compete
| with them and force them out of business. Amazon should have
| been fulfilling orders on behalf of mom & pop's knitting
| supply, not undercutting them and cutting them out. This is
| incredibly damaging to the tax base as most taxes are paid by
| small businesses. Now we have a pandemic where the big box
| stores and online retailers remain open while the mom & pops
| are closed and going bust. It's a slow moving economic
| disaster IMO
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >Amazon should have been fulfilling orders on behalf of mom
| & pop's knitting supply, not undercutting them and cutting
| them out. This is incredibly damaging to the tax base as
| most taxes are paid by small businesses.
|
| It's benefiting to me, and I think society, to not pay
| extra for unnecessary middlemen. If the problem is
| insufficient taxes, then raise taxes.
| olivermarks wrote:
| raise taxes on who? If 'unnecessary middle men' are out
| of business that leaves a few wealthy consumers and a few
| centralized suppliers. The rest of the population will be
| unemployed supported by the state if they are lucky
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Taxes on the wealthy. It is wealth redistribution one way
| or another, but a more efficient one than keeping
| middlemen around for no reason.
| olivermarks wrote:
| Most wealthy people are multi passport stateless and keep
| their money offshore, paying little or no tax. The bigger
| the global corporation the more likely they are to be
| registered in Ireland or other tax free havens. There is
| no trickle down in taxes when a few have won the Monopoly
| game
| luplex wrote:
| Middlemen still do have benefits. They provide
| resiliency. If Amazon commits serious fraud and is shut
| down, there is no one left. We should not have privately
| owned systems that are too big to fail.
| mbgerring wrote:
| Social media apps made it impossible to export your social graph
| many years before GDPR. The only thing that would make them do it
| now is if they were legally required to.
| adamc wrote:
| I hate all of these attempts to monetize communication. The
| government should strictly regulate them.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| This is sort of like arguing, "if we make it illegal to push
| pills on people, then the Sackler family will have a monopoly on
| opiate addictions".
| anderspitman wrote:
| In my opinion the way to enter the social network market is using
| the Slack/Discord approach. Rather than trying to make a better
| Facebook for the world, make a better Facebook for people to use
| for their specific community or company, and then make it easy to
| tie your account to multiple communities, and then (maybe) start
| connecting communities.
|
| I _almost_ achieved escape velocity with Matrix /Riot in my
| gaming group a couple years ago. Ultimately it was too buggy for
| them at the time and we ended up on FB messenger, but if it had
| worked they'd all be primed to join a Matrix-based social network
| right now.
| ricree wrote:
| >make a better Facebook for people to use for their specific
| community or company, and then make it easy to tie your account
| to multiple communities, and then (maybe) start connecting
| communities.
|
| Which, of course, was precisely how Facebook broke into the
| social network market in the first place.
|
| Initially not just for college students, but students at
| specific colleges. Then connecting students between college,
| then bringing in family members of those students, and so on.
| EGreg wrote:
| Except now it's much more expensive and difficult to match
| what people want in 2021. You can't just make a face book of
| ... "Profiles".
|
| Trust me we've been working on
| https://github.com/Qbix/Platform and we only recently reached
| the point where people's main complaint is the APPEARANCE
| hahaha
| amiga-workbench wrote:
| I can sort of see what they mean by appearance, but its not
| far off looking tidy. The issues are mostly around padding
| and UI element proportions.
|
| Some of your icons are too large for the elements they are
| inside of, the scaling of form elements within your filter
| interface is somewhat inconsistent too.
|
| If I wasn't completely slammed at work I'd be open to
| submitting a PR.
| EGreg wrote:
| Definitely would highly appreciate it!
|
| (Even happy to compensate you if you email me, see links
| in my profile.)
| [deleted]
| ojilles wrote:
| Basically be Shopify for Social Networks?
| no_wizard wrote:
| This is true, the web is in essence[0] what we, as a collective
| society, make of it. Many of the points he brings up I never even
| thought of, and I like to consider myself a staunch privacy
| advocate.
|
| Namely, the points on how small businesses are affected by GDPR
| and anti-tracking / anti-cookie measures are fresh perspectives
| I've never thought of. To his point, all this is going to do is
| drive people to where the eye balls are, so instead of just
| _marketing_ on Facebook (or Twitter, or Reddit) you want to
| _market and convert_ your audience all on the same platform(s)
| because its increasingly difficult to do otherwise.
|
| My counter point being of course, that this may have been
| inevitable anyway, since this really is increasingly the way
| people interact, is via apps like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter,
| Reddit etc and less and less on the open web. Of course large
| corporations can and should and will kicking or screaming or no,
| comply with the laws, but little thought has been given how much
| those laws don't disrupt the fundamental problem: disrupting the
| stranglehold these companies have on interaction. I think a good
| amount of the GDPR, and Apple's recent moves have good ideas and
| net wins, but after reading this article, I can also see how it
| will simply, in the long term, act as a form of regulatory
| capture where only the largest entrenched companies can comply
| and small companies, particularly non tech small businesses, will
| be increasingly more reliant on those platforms going forward.
|
| The solution isn't of course, to get rid of things like the GDPR,
| but like all laws and regulation, it needs to be re-thought and
| re-shaped as it affects the marketplace, and that's the crux of
| the problem, most regulation is _set it and forget_ (particularly
| in the US) where there is little after thought given or follow up
| to it and augmenting it appropriately to minimize _real_
| downsides (not perceived ones that corporations complain about,
| but more barriers it creates to new businesses) and asking the
| question of _is this acceptable or do we need to re-think some
| aspect of this?_
|
| I know this won't play that well either, its not going to be a
| popular debate among my peers, but its important we consider all
| the facts, none the less.
|
| [0]: I may be reducing the article a little too much here,
| forgive me, I really do think everyone should read it first
| Aerroon wrote:
| The solution, as it often is, is to create reasonable
| exemptions for small businesses. How do people expect a single
| person to start a business among all of these rules? Obviously
| there shouldn't be no rules, but they need to be easier to
| comply with. Right now it all kind of works, because there's a
| lack of enforcement. But we don't know how many people have
| given up, because they were uncertain of the regulations.
| twiss wrote:
| For new businesses, most support tickets will probably be
| handled manually. This could even include such mundane things
| as "could you reset my password" (if you haven't bothered to
| implement a "forgot my password" mechanism yet, which is
| perfectly reasonable). Another request could be, "could you
| delete my account and data". Normally, if a user asks you
| that, you should probably already do so anyway, GDPR just
| says that you must. It also says that if they ask for their
| data, you have to give it to them.
|
| If you don't have many users yet, not many such requests will
| come in, so I don't think this is an undue burden. In the
| beginning, the burden will be roughly proportional to the
| number of users you have. If the burden becomes too high,
| it's easily automatable. So personally I don't think an
| explicit exemption for small businesses is really necessary.
| rektide wrote:
| a huge part of this article is about clubhouse & social networks
| means for virality, about how they can expand. taking contacts &
| pushing to them is the kind of main model that Clubhouse is
| doing.
|
| > I get the argument around banning contact exports;
| unsurprisingly, there are calls that Apple do exactly that in the
| wake of Clubhouse's rise (never mind the fact that contacts have
| been accessible -- and thus have been accessed! -- in this way
| for years). What people making these calls -- and these laws --
| need to be more honest about, though, is that they killing
| competition.
|
| what seems awkward, missing, to me is that all these virality
| systems are push model. each would be social network has to
| bootstrap, and it does it by making new users push a bunch of
| invites out to their friends.
|
| where is the pull model? where can I go see my friend Cable's
| activity, see what networks he is most social on these days?
| Instagram posts to Twitter are mentioned in the article, but
| that's such a special purpose form, such a one off, made in part
| possible by the very general share-whatever nature of twitter.
|
| some standards for social network users to be able too interlink
| & declare their other networks would be great, as a start.
| second, I want some activity monitor to be standardized, so I can
| get a quick heads-up cross network view of where I should be
| looking at my associates.
|
| we lack the means to ambientlu explore each other socially, and
| social networking lacks a pull model of networking: we have to
| explicitly rendezvous on each network, owing to the lack of
| cross-network systems. re inter- the internet please, & let's
| standardize some good base level cross-social systems.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| > what seems awkward, missing, to me is that all these virality
| systems are push model. each would be social network has to
| bootstrap, and it does it by making new users push a bunch of
| invites out to their friends.
|
| > where is the pull model? where can I go see my friend Cable's
| activity, see what networks he is most social on these days?
| Instagram posts to Twitter are mentioned in the article, but
| that's such a special purpose form, such a one off, made in
| part possible by the very general share-whatever nature of
| twitter.
|
| Clubhouse actually is both push and pull. Yes, you can send
| invites to friends to get them onto the app, but having your
| contacts also lets them connect you to those already there when
| you first log on.
|
| Of course this isn't the open pull model you're talking about,
| where I can discover new things my friend is doing, or find out
| where he is most active. But using the phone number as an
| identifier for social graphs is kind of a hack around the non-
| existence of such a thing.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| > The cause is Apple: its approach to cookies makes platform-
| based web storefronts increasingly difficult to monetize
| effectively
|
| Can anyone explain this? I'm not sure what they are referring to.
| twiss wrote:
| Previously, cookies could be used to track users across
| websites (e.g. multiple websites using the Shopify platform, by
| making a request to shopify.com), but also to provide useful
| functionality (e.g. remembering their contact details). Now,
| this is not possible anymore, due to first-party isolation
| being implemented in Safari and now Firefox.
|
| Personally, I think this is not such a big deal, as the browser
| can remember your contact details for you anyway, and you can
| fill them out on any website. So I think it's a win for privacy
| and for users, but it's true that there are some downsides as
| well.
| thombles wrote:
| The author explains one of their main concerns:
|
| > its attack on "tracking" -- which goes far beyond the IDFA
| -- makes it increasingly impossible to acquire users in one
| place and convert them in another
|
| Somehow I can't bring myself to feel sympathy for business
| models affected by this.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| It goes without saying to his audience that you can't
| "monetize a platform-based storefront" without tracking users
| across websites?
|
| Maybe I don't understand what "monetize a platform-based
| storefront" means exactly. He's talking about the particular
| store on shopify making money, not shopify itself getting
| customers, right?
| tguedes wrote:
| He means Shopify. Shopify merchants (and other DTC companies)
| heavily use Facebook/Instagram to target the specific audience
| they are targeting. Shopify has since announced that there will
| be a tighter integration with Facebook Shops
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| What does that have to do with "apple's approach to cookies
| makes platform-based web storefronts increasingly difficult
| to monetize effectively"?
| crazypython wrote:
| See also: Semantic web. RDF, OWL,
| https://solidproject.org/TR/protocol . It's the original intent
| of Tim-Berners Lee, the man who invented the web.
| sbazerque wrote:
| In my view the lack of authentication in the original semantic
| web concept made it a SEO gaming vector for years and years.
|
| Knowing who to trust is as hard a problem as basic
| understanding / semantics.
| IggleSniggle wrote:
| Trust is a harder problem than basic understanding /
| semantics, because it requires basic understanding /
| semantics as a prerequisite.
|
| You might trust your banker with your money but not your
| personal life, and trust your friend with your personal life
| but not your bank account.
|
| Therefore, you there must be explicit and implicit degrees of
| trust that are specifically trust "for some intention" or at
| even just "for some specific purpose." And then, you must
| trust that the meaning of any promise or guarantee is
| equivalent between parties.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > One of the reasons why GDPR is such a disaster is that it makes
| it all but impossible for a new social media company to ever be
| started in Europe
|
| And then goes on to
|
| > Moreover, it's a reasonable regulation: my friend on Facebook
| didn't give permission for their information to be given to
| Snapchat, for example. It does, though, make it that much more
| difficult to bootstrap a Facebook competitor: the most valuable
| data (from a business perspective, anyways) is the social graph
|
| So what does he propose then, huh? "Oh, forget about privacy.
| Since Facebook sits on a trove of personal data the never asked
| consent for, everyone should have the same access to the same
| trove of data"?
| gowld wrote:
| Simple proposal:
|
| The data should be tightly controlled by the user, like HIPAA.
|
| Users can sell their own data for services, but they can't sell
| other people's data.
| [deleted]
| warkdarrior wrote:
| That is the situation under GDPR right now (at least
| legally). But then the problem is with moving my data to
| another platform, especially if my data involves other
| people. For example, can I take my contacts from Facebook and
| move them to Signal? What if you are in my contacts, do I
| need your permission to move your info to Signal?
| giantrobot wrote:
| The web had interoperability but it was largely ignored and then
| replaced by silos and walled gardens. The Web 2.0 cognoscenti
| made a lot of the same mistakes as the Web 1.0 cognoscenti about
| how systems would be used and received by "normal" people.
|
| A lot of good ideas had terrible usability and didn't get to a
| real tipping point. Contrast that with social media sites (even
| back to MySpace) that were far more usable to the average person.
|
| As as an example, look at RSS (any version including Atom). It is
| a great technological solution for the Web 2.0 proponents. They
| were interested in long form postings and had a lot of posts on
| similar subjects. Their posts had titles, some categorization,
| and maybe even semantic elements. Making a "feed" to syndicate
| those posts was a pretty useful thing both for their visibility
| and you and I as readers.
|
| What RSS doesn't offer is a good way to express short form
| informal posts on mixed subject matter. Even posting a simple
| link to an interesting page or just an image isn't well expressed
| with most RSS generating software and not handled well by the
| format or feed readers. Even the word "subscribe" implies a bit
| of a formal social anti-pattern.
|
| Compare that to most social media sites, even going back to
| MySpace. The presented users with a single content field. The UI
| basically asked "What's up?". There's no implied formality of a
| post title or categorization. It just plops on top of a stack of
| your posts on your "feed".
|
| That's not to say what social media sites have done with those
| user feeds is necessarily good (echo chambers, engagement
| manipulation, etc) but they served a desire of a _lot_ of people.
| I 'd venture that most people don't want to sit down and make
| long form posts with cognitive load like titles and categories.
|
| Large social media sites have no use for interoperability because
| their money is made on engagement with their site/app. The Web
| 2.0 visionaries spent a lot of time navel gazing and being
| focused on their areas of interest so they missed a lot of thing
| social media has implemented. We're seeing interoperability start
| to happen again (Fediverse etc) with people taking the informal
| social media models and applying Web 2.0's decentralized
| concepts.
|
| It's not clear is the decentralized social media can hit a
| critical mass of users because multimedia, especially video, is a
| huge draw for social media users and is hideously expensive to
| host and distribute. There's also effectively zero monetization
| and a lot of people are trying to be professional social media
| users.
| MatekCopatek wrote:
| An unlikely outcome that I'd like to see is the following:
|
| 1. Legislation makes current models impossible - I'm imagining
| something like Section 230 being repealed, Twitter and Facebook
| being on the hook for anything anyone posts, which means they
| can't moderate and are forced to change their business
| model/effectively close shop.
|
| 2. People still want to blog/share/like.
|
| 3. Federated networks become a thing again because small
| communities are way easier to moderate. Nerds self host, regular
| people get accounts as part of their ISP subscription or pay a
| few bucks for some SaaS offering. Maybe a forward looking country
| gives you an e-identity on the official Mastodon instance where
| the ToS equals local law so we don't have to have that whole
| Twitter censorship discussion ever again.
|
| 4. Everyone lives happily ever after.
| EGreg wrote:
| For 3 to happen we would need better software. Do you have any
| suggestions that are the best in class?
| lazzlazzlazz wrote:
| The HN community will agree that there is a deep issue with
| interoperability and platform risk in Web 2.0, but will again
| have a knee-jerk response that the rapidly growing Web 3.0
| community is awful, there's no point, etc. -- because it's
| crypto.
|
| How do you create a software application that exists and runs
| independently of the platform (and even hardware) on which it
| exists? How do you create a robust, unified, incentive-aligned
| decentralized consensus system?
|
| Those working on crypto projects today already understand this.
| sbazerque wrote:
| I'm working on it, Ben [1].
|
| Believe me, it is no easy thing to do.
|
| [1] https://github.com/hyperhyperspace/hyperhyperspace-core
| [deleted]
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| How do you deal with browser tiny storage limitations for each
| domain?
| sbazerque wrote:
| We use IndexedDB, and in modern browsers the limit should be
| at least a few hundred megabytes (see for example this answer
| for Chrome limits [1], the situation is similar in Firefox).
|
| So far this has been enough, but the apps we have are fairly
| simple (e.g. no media!). We'll see. Maybe media can be
| handled off browser.
|
| [1] https://web.dev/storage-for-the-web/#how-much
| EGreg wrote:
| Yes, this describes the problems. Here is a detailed resource on
| what an actual solution would look like:
|
| https://qbix.com/token
|
| (Ignore the token part and read the rest.)
| bronikowski wrote:
| > One of the reasons why GDPR is such a disaster is that it makes
| it all but impossible for a new social media company to ever be
| started in Europe
|
| Maybe we don't need more "social media companies" of the type
| that GDPR is "a disaster" for.
| gowld wrote:
| Some people like to socialize with each other.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| Do these people also like to be tracked all the time and have
| their data sold to third parties who use that data to
| manipulate the people?
| ericflo wrote:
| > Twitter eventually cut off Instagram in-line image sharing, but
| by then it was too late.
|
| It actually went in the opposite direction - Instagram shut down
| Twitter's ability to display their images in-line.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-02 23:01 UTC)