An alternative to Facebook for ATS

reply to post by boondock-saint


Except that the point of creating a Facebook Page was not to inspire social networking among ATS users, it's an effort to inform the millions of Facebook users about ATS.

A couple months ago I exchanged emails with the DIaspora team, and I'm keeping a close eye. I don't necessarily agree with their infrastructure approach as it's going to be difficult for the casual user, and I believe it may be possible to be exploited by those with ill-intent. Time will tell.

A diaspora (in Greek, διασπορά – "a scattering [of seeds]") is the movement or migration of a group of people, such as those sharing a national and/or ethnic identity, away from an established or ancestral homeland.

Appropriate name, if it catches -

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

Yes, that was the discussion. Internal vs external. I don't see how it applies to this discussion either, but since the question was brought up, I thought I'd reference the thread...

well thanks for posting that thread for clarification
since that thread was posted in May, I guess they
decided to do the external social networking path
to draw in outside folks. So this thread would still
be a viable proposal to substitute Diaspora for
Facebook when it is launched.

I was informed about Diaspora a few months ago by a friend who is involved with it. I love the idea... I doubt it will challenge FB in sheer scale and size though, sadly...

That being said, when Diaspora is launched you can bet we'll be checking it out and if it's half as good as it appears it will be we'll work on getting a presence there too.

The realities of the internet in 2010 (and beyond I would imagine) require a presence on FB if you want grow your audience.

We have always stated our primary goal is getting as many people on this planet as possible to see what our members are saying about the important topics they discuss here on ATS.

Facebook is the biggest single gathering of the people on this planet so, there it is...

Springer...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
it's an effort to inform the millions of Facebook users about ATS.

well after several dozens articles concerning FB
security issues that has shown up in MSM and the loss
of millions of their users. I expect those users will
find a new home. So don't expect Diaspora to
remain silent with few users very long

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
A couple months ago I exchanged emails with the DIaspora team, and I'm keeping a close eye. I don't necessarily agree with their infrastructure approach as it's going to be difficult for the casual user, and I believe it may be possible to be exploited by those with ill-intent. Time will tell.

well just because a site starts with 1 infrastructure
doesn't mean they will keep it. As most developers
only improve as they progress, just as ATS is doing

Originally posted by boondock-saint
well just because a site starts with 1 infrastructure
doesn't mean they will keep it.

The core infrastructure concept is one of a distributed framework, which requires each user to have their own "seed" on their own always-on web server. That's clearly not something a casual user would be able to set up, and not well-considered for mobile access.

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
a Preface to this post:

As I stated in the ATS is on Facebook thread, I think people that concerned with privacy shouldn't even be on the interwebs in the first place.

But, in all seriousness, do you truly think this will not go the same way as facebook? I mean...facebook promised up and down that your info was 100% safe. So did myspace etc etc.

And a concern I have with it being open sourced...wouldn't that mean your average joe blow hacker could get to ones information easier? I'll admit, I do not fully understand what "open source" means, which is why I am asking.

"Open Source" means just that

the source code is available for anyone to see, it's not compiled into one huge standalone program.

It means a few things

anyone can improve the code and make the software better

anyone can READ the code (if you have the appropriate knowledge) and check if anything sinister is programmed, if so, any programmer would be able to patch it and release a fixed version.

As well as the fact that it's free to use ofcourse ><

Originally posted by Romekje
anyone can improve the code and make the software better

But since "people" are represented by distinct nodes on a distributed framework (which they call seeds), it's highly probably those with nefarious intent could modify the code on their seed server such that it looks fine, but does terrible things.

From their site

"For the less technically inclined, we hope to provide a one-click hosting service like Wordpress.com to make creating a seed as easy as possible."

That sounds easy enough, but I tend to agree that a lot of people may be put off by having to get involved in anything technical at all past clicking a sign up button, but for people with genuine privacy concerns with things like face book (and I would have thought that considering the nature of discourse on ATS that might be a fairly high percentage) then it sounds good

reply to post by Xiamara

I'm going to keep my eye on this, I have a facebook account and I now seriously regret it. It takes up too much time in my life, its not private, and Its been used unfairly against me.

I have to ask... how was it used unfairly against you? I'm an avid fb user and I'd like to know if there's anything (besides the obvious) that I need to be concerned about.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
But since "people" are represented by distinct nodes on a distributed framework (which they call seeds), it's highly probably those with nefarious intent could modify the code on their seed server such that it looks fine, but does terrible things.

Ok Bill we might be confusing the average ATSer here.
I'm relatively sure that the site mods and admins are
not gonna allow just anybody to post code without
them looking over it for quality control. Kinda like
Wiki does. People post and it is checked for
validity before it goes into production. So therefore
that nefarious intent plainly goes back to the owners.
But still with that said, users can still see what the code in
production is. So that is a huge plus.

I would think that any system that relied upon a peer to peer file sharing type model would create far more serious security concerns than an existing connect when used system ?

And for me open source has certainly raised more questions than it has answers for in terms of security. Its kind of the Apple answer to viruses - no they tend not to be targeted - because the user community vs Windows is so small as to make the effort wasted.

If we - and I do for one see the move to facebook as an out reach project - what is the point of adopting a standard that will take 2 to 3 years to gain acceptance - if given its open source anyone is actually bothered to develop?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Romekje
anyone can improve the code and make the software better

But since "people" are represented by distinct nodes on a distributed framework (which they call seeds), it's highly probably those with nefarious intent could modify the code on their seed server such that it looks fine, but does terrible things.

edit on by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

you won't get away with programming stuff that "Looks fine, but works against you" in open source. It would be like expecting a hacker to click on a .ru link spammed through MSN...

People using open source software in general have a bit more understanding of a computer then the common user to begin with (in my opinion)

In other words...

You won't have to explain a Firefox user what the risk of being online is to begin with.

Having your data hacked by a a occasional malicious user that happened to stumble onto your account?
or have your data SOLD to third parties by the website that claims to safegaurd your privacy..

I'll go for the first option.

reply to post by boondock-saint


I think you're misunderstanding the core point here... but first, Diaspora is not intended to be "White Labeled" such that we could use it for an ATS social network. I had that conversation with them a couple months ago, and the closest we could come to that is creating a virtualized server to host a Diaspora seed for ATS members... more on that later.

The issue is that someone who would like to use Diaspora must arrange for their own always-on web hosting... either via server they have at home, or through a third-party. Third party solutions would be at least $10 a month, maybe less if the entire universe of Diaspora users reaches a significant size. Either way, it makes it significantly more difficult for a non-tech-savvy potential user to get involved (get server space, secure it, install software, pay the monthly bills). And, if someone is suddenly unable to pay their hosting bills (or their home machine crashes), all their friends loose access to the information.

The other issue is the Ruby framework as the basis of the programming. While efficient Ruby applications can be built, it's notorious for overall poor performance and scalability. A hosting provider with, maybe, 200 virtualized servers providing seeds for Diaspora users will be faced with a performance optimization nightmare. It's possible, and has been done, but the expertise is both rare and expensive.


And so, with all those seeds out there, driven by open code that has been downloaded and installed on a server "somewhere," the opportunity for those will ill-intent to add malicious bits to the code -- that sits on their own server, and is part of the Diaspora distributed framework -- is rather significant. The probability of someone converting the Diaspora framework into a botnet would seem rather significant... especially for those inexperienced users that don't revise "default" settings at installation.



While I admire the concept, the implementation screams "uber-geek" with little consideration given to ease-of-use.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

The issue is that someone who would like to use Diaspora must arrange for their own always-on web hosting... either via server they have at home, or through a third-party. Third party solutions would be at least $10 a month, maybe less if the entire universe of Diaspora users reaches a significant size. Either way, it makes it significantly more difficult for a non-tech-savvy potential user to get involved (get server space, secure it, install software, pay the monthly bills). And, if someone is suddenly unable to pay their hosting bills (or their home machine crashes), all their friends loose access to the information.

edit on by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

I think you hit the nail on the head here - I'm quite a geek but live and die on my laptop - there is no way I would consider leaving a machine slaved to the net 24/7 (not that I don't have the boxes) but my time is my £/$ and messing around with that sort of set-up - especially when I can access FB from my Phone / Laptop / Tweetdeck wherever I am.

I will also echo a point from Wednesday's show - with the acceptance of Echelon - why do we need an alternative? And until one is proven and in true existence - for anyone who has ever worked in software development and sales (and I guess working with Sage might qualify me) - Launched September 15th - when your sitting at August 27th is still vapourwere, this is a very mute point.

Use the tools you are given is an important maxim in marketing in my book - yes the next big thing might be just round the corner - but thats all it is - round the corner. I think the community that has been here a long time realises that if we wish to make the message known - now is the time!

well as you say Bill, it has been a couple months
since you have spoke with them so why don't we
wait for grand opening to see what Diaspora entails
before jumping the gun with conclusions.

If what you say is true, that seeds would have to run
in a P2P type atmosphere and needs a dedicated
24/7 connect, then we would NOT be better off.
What bothers me most about this new info is,
why would they go to all the trouble of doing a
infrastructure of this sort, if it depends entirely
on relays to function. It just doesn't make sense
to me the logic behind it.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
why don't we
wait for grand opening to see what Diaspora entails
before jumping the gun with conclusions.

Recent questions on their FAQ page indicate the "seed" framework is still the core model.

It just doesn't make sense
to me the logic behind it.

Actually, to me, it's very familiar.

The late 1990's were riddled with "super-geek technology solutions" in search of users, this feels the same. Diaspora appears to be developed by high-end computer science students for whom setting up a server is like buttering toast... they most likely cannot conceive of the notion that it'd be much harder for anyone else.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Hey, don't the profiles on our media pages have a social networking feature? Why can't we connect that to Above, and have that as our "profile" page?

The realities of the internet in 2010 (and beyond I would imagine) require a presence on FB if you want grow your audience.

From a marketing standpoint, this is really the bottom line.
If other outlets also offer opportunities for growth, I'm sure the senior staff of ATS will take advantage of those also.

Nothing saying you have to be on one or another... Presence is everything.

Originally posted by Silk

And for me open source has certainly raised more questions than it has answers for in terms of security. Its kind of the Apple answer to viruses - no they tend not to be targeted - because the user community vs Windows is so small as to make the effort wasted.

I don't want to drag this thread off topic, but I couldn't let this often repeated myth go unchallenged.

Linux is completely open source and has a market share for server operating systems of somewhere around 30%-40% It does not rely on security through obscurity in the slightest.