Is this a debate about the state of the web today, or what it “should be”? It would seem that TBL is the perfect man to conceive of the open web, seeing as how he donated his contribution to your “capitalist” opportunity.

There is a larger notion of capitalism that the web is enabling… it is one that starts with the community marketplace as the core value commodity, individually owned by each identity that creates its transient structure. Its transience is absolute, and any concept that does not take that into account will find itself on the outside looking in eventually. Today, consumers have limited powers… but that is not always going to be the case. So the challenge then is to search for answers to the problems that have been raised here, and many more. Do not be fooled into thinking that the web today is much of anything in relation to what it will one day become. Web 2.0 may only be a marketing slogan, but it was necessary to kick-start a new round of momentum in the development of the web. Companies have begun buying into openness. None of us want the version of the web that the RIAA would have us experience… and that is the problem with the capitalist pig.

Your ideas are old… tried… tested…known… proven…

The web is new… untried… untested…fertile… developmental by nature… there is potentially a 14 year old kid working right now on an idea that will change the developmental curve of the web forever… when have you ever seen something like that before?

So, you are right pig. You see the world as it is.

But here is what I see. I, as any user of the web, have yet to be identified properly on this network. I am the owner of my identity. My participation is a commodity yet to be properly organized for the long term. Anyone wishing to service my identity should begin to realize that a day is coming when, as a capitalist owner of my individual marketplace, I am in the driver seat, and the value of our relationship is solely based on the value of the service you wish to provide. The data you hold about me and my activities is based on permissions I give to you to handle such data. Your rights to use said data are not written in stone.

The web is an immature idea still… passionately immature.

…

…

Here’s the question…if MySpace and (now) Facebook can’t stop the spammers from ruining the internal user experience within their own closed network systems, how on God’s green earth will open, cross-pollinated, FOAF networks do it?

I for one will be looking for rest stops on the information super highway

Here is a simple example of a Linked Data Reference via a Linked Data Web ID (constructured using the familiar URL format):

http://dbpedia....rce/Linked_Data

You will note that it will return a normal Web Document, but note how the ability to expose related data via hyperlinks is a natural part of the materialized Web Document. Each link is a Data Link that can be consumed as traditional HTML or if you so choose (i.e. you have alernative perspectives you seek to create) RDF which exposes the raw data and all its relationships.

http://scobleiz...ityorg-just-pr/

They’re just moving at a slower rate with technology than everyone else. Honestly, Youtube and Facebook handle most of their online needs. Do they really need Twine-like super semantic AI-style recommendations. Twine isn’t going to do anything but show smarter more business-savvy, people-oriented techs what is possible. If anything, they will strike a deal where Facebook uses their system to power recommendations.

All this crap is just way too much for regular people. period. Call me if you want my company to build some of it though. I’d be more than happy to help you.

James
from
http://FaceySpacey.com Your One Stop Social/Semantic Media Shop

As a user, if I’m truly interested in your product, you can trust me to take the extra 5 minutes and create an account.

All that needs to happen is that users find themselves getting more of what they want and happier in an Open Social Data Portability type of environment, and more and more companies start going that route (new and old companies), and eventually, companies like Facebook have to follow suit.

Of course its all bullshit when a company like Facebook joins the Data Portability workgroup. They’re’ just saying it to be like: “Look at me, I’m OPEN…bla bla bla!”

So it’s definitely a stupid expectation to think these companies will do this and lead the way if they have to. And the only way to make this happen quickly is pretty much if Facebook leads the way in this, which they won’t in actuality. So, it’s going to take like 2.5 years of small startups chipping away at the Open thing, making technologies like RDF, APML, FOAF, etc more commonplace. And ultimately, only the users will suffer. They could have Data Portability now, but they won’t because it’s not financially viable for the Heavy Hitters.

And I’m totally fine with this, because it’s friggin capitalism. And I too am not here for fun and games.

James
from
http://FaceySpacey.com Your One Stop Social Media Shop

Ok, so since I am a capitalist and I enjoy facebook, I am in a facebook group called, “i am a capitalist pig, suck me hard”. Here, I made a lot of friends, but all we can do is post messages to each other and look at each other’s pics.

So, this new company sees the opp for a niche social network and starts, capitalistz.com and this is great because it has all this new and amazing functionality that facebook doesn’t have, such as the ability to hate hippies by putting a virtual arrow thru their heart, etc. First thing I do, is invite all my facebook friends from my fav group. Now capitalistz.com value just rose due to the increase in relevant members.

This is the economic reason for joining:

1) similar companies will die, the best will survive. this is great and will push business people to come up with creative ideas rather than making copies (stop recreating digg please). It encourages businesses to think strategically and complementary. i.e. how can i leverage your product? (all the twitter apps and mashups are good examples). so we are talking basic econ here, an increase in complementary products. more peanut butter and jelly.
2) and maybe there will be more companies that partner up. if our code can work together then buy each other out for godsake and make 1 product that works well instead of 4 products that suck. (i.e. friendfeed.com, streem.us, tumblr.com, and soup.io)
3) there will be less businesses. the “ease of entry” is not always a good thing. What has happen here is there is way too much out there and a lot of it sucks. I waste hours surfing the net (i kinda get paid for it tho) and it’s totally inefficient. I mean, goddamn! there are a lot of websites out there.

BOTTOM LINE: It’s time to get real. Clean up the fing internet please.

I’d tend to think Linked Data and Data Portability are two different things. The latter is more about data migration and/or service or provider migration (in addition to being able to link)..

Now let’s look at today’s “situation”…

You’ve got Facebook and millions of users (and growing); a tipping point and critical mass in one. The only other social network that comes close is MySpace (with more users). Facebook (and MySpace’s) critical mass is a major competitive advantage. It’s going to be nearly impossible for other competitors to surpass them at this point on the ‘viral’ equation alone.

The Facebook ‘product’ is superior to almost all the other social networks — and I’m not referring to services, functions, or UI. I’m referring to the fact that most people’s friends are using it which makes it a better product. Facebook would be an IDIOT to open things up to make it easy for users to extract data and even ‘move’ to a competitor.

Do you know what “OpenSocial” really is? It’s Google’s way of saying, “We lost the social network game.”

That’s right, THEY LOST.

So now Google is behind this “OpenSocial” initiative so they can build things to siphon off users from Facebook and MySpace — as well as to mobilize other companies to do the dirty work for them and to bring over more users.

It’s all BULLSHIT.

The idea of true “Data Portability” across the Web is a nice, let’s-all-hold-hands-and-sing concept, but it works against many Internet-based companies’ competitive advantage of making it hard for people to leave.

Profitability online in 99% of businesses comes down to a company providing a product that many people really want and a huge barrier of exit to make it PAINFUL to leave.

And while we’re at…

WEB 2.0 IS TOTAL BULLSHIT TOO.

All “Web 2.0″ is, is a dumb label that the Tech industry came up with to try and make Wall Street forget how much they suck at actually creating companies that MAKE MONEY.

“Ohhh, no, Web 2.0 is definitely real… it’s all about user generated content and more interaction!”

REALLY?

Usenet. Discussion forums. Epinions. Consumer Reports. CuSeeMe (video conferencing developed by Cornell in the early 1990s). Enough said.

User generated content and “social media” have been around since 1990. This isn’t “Web 2.0″ this is “Let us have a do-over because you know we suck at building things that make money.”

“Do As I Say, Not As I Do” should be Google’s new motto.

Again, while this “Data Portability” pipedream sounds nice and cozy, it goes against the profit interests of the companies IN CONTROL.

i can feel when a company is thinking of itself more than it is thinking of me, and my natural response is not to patronize it

i think more of us will feel this way, and businesses who want to thrive will have to adjust, slowly but surely