Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Breaking Open Facebook With FOSS

Posted by kdawson on Tue Oct 30, 2007 05:34 PM
from the get-out-of-the-silo-free dept.
NewsCloud writes "Since last December, Facebook has grown from 12 to 47 million users and third-party developers have launched more than 6,000 applications with its API. While privacy advocates have been concerned about Google for the past several years, most of us are just beginning to comprehend Facebook's growing impact on who, when, what and how we connect with friends. Microsoft's recent $240 million investment in the company gives it all the capital it needs for further growth. Last August, Wired published two unusual stories describing how consumers might link together a variety of third-party services to emulate Facebook, and ultimately calling on the open-source software community to build alternatives to the service. Inspired in part by Wired, I've posted some ideas describing what would be needed for an open source architecture for social networking."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Google's Plans for a Social API 83 comments
NewsCloud writes "After tonight's Breaking Open Facebook with Free Open Source Software, TechCrunch reports Google plans to announce an open API for social networking tomorrow. "OpenSocial is a set of three common APIs, defined by Google with input from partners, that allow developers to access core functions and information at social networks: 1) Profile Information (user data) 2) Friends Information (social graph) and 3) Activities (things that happen, News Feed type stuff)" Says Om Malik: "OpenSocial attacks Facebook where it is the weakest (and the strongest): its quintessential closed nature...Even if you take Facebook out of the equation, the task of writing and adapting widgets for the every increasing number of social platforms was going to be turn into a colossal mess.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 30 2007, @05:38PM (#21177589)
    and every single one drives me nuts. No, I don't want to post on your fucking SUPERWALL, be in your TOP FRIENDS list, or answer pointless quizzes.

    There should be a way to turn off app requests...
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 30 2007, @06:32PM (#21178117)
      Personally, I look forward to a FOSS facebook clone. It will have the fun and human warmth of LKML, the ease of use of vi, and the male-female ratio of an 18th century ship of the line. **bliss**
  • by DragonWriter (970822) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @05:41PM (#21177617)

    While privacy advocates have been concerned about Google for the past several years, most of us are just beginning to comprehend Facebook's growing impact on who, when, what and how we connect with friends.


    I don't know what "us" you are talking about, but I've realized for years that Facebook has no effect on who, when, what, and how I connect with friends, and that's unlikely to change anytime in the near future.

    • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @06:04PM (#21177841)
      Note: Posts like the parent? The reason it'll never work.

      Getting open source developers to even *care* about social networking would be a small miracle. Getting them to actually start developing code for one a step above that, and getting them to all agree on the same protocol/interface simply impossible.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Note: Posts like the parent? The reason it'll never work.

        As the author of the post, I'll disagree with that.

        Getting open source developers to even *care* about social networking would be a small miracle.

        Hey, I think you are misreading my comment (which was just about the sweep of the description in TFS) if you think I don't care about social networking; I've been kind of idly interested in open (both in terms of "free/open source" and in terms of "freely interconnecting) frameworks for it for a while. Ther

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Getting open source developers to even *care* about social networking would be a small miracle. Getting them to actually start developing code for one a step above that, and getting them to all agree on the same protocol/interface simply impossible.

        Don't speak for all of us. Personally i think that social networking sites are kindof neat. I use facebook all time. Its a great little time waster for when I'm dizzy from staring at consoles full of perl code all day :). On top of that, it lets me keep in light contact with my friends that are still in school.
        I really think this is a generation thing. While previous generations had telephones and "little black books" we have myspace and buddy-lists. Things like facebook, or myspace aren't really tha

      • And... (Score:3, Insightful)

        That's a bad thing? Frankly I expect to see a lot of these communities come and go. The only thing I find a little alarming is the hype that surrounds them. If the open source community wants to jump in, great and if not, great. Frankly I don't see the difference. Maybe after the hype has died down some of these sites will have hit on something substantial that can be wrapped into the kind of utility generally provided by the developer community, but until then all I see is a series of social and commercial
      • Ah. The fact that they don't care is why no one ever wrote GAIM, Jabber, IRC, the old BBS's, Usenet, or mailing lists.

        Getting them to agree on format is admittedly impossible, but it's obvious that they do, in fact, care.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I love the little tagline on facebook: "join a network to see people who live, study, or work around you". There's me thinking you could just walk outside your front door, or take a stroll around your offices or college to do that...

      • by garbletext (669861) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @07:45PM (#21178589)
        then you wouldn't know whether they liked Britney spears or not, or be able to see 100 drunken photos of them before you even said hello.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        It's amazing how often I've looked at some random stranger's profile on Facebook and then ran into the very same person in real life shortly thereafter. What I wonder is if I've seen these people before and only took notice because of their Facebook profile, or if the encounter was purely a coincidence every single time.
    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @06:43PM (#21178203)
      I agree. I was a facebook user for a while, but after being kicked off (in a blatant act of censorship, as far as I can tell), I've noticed something: life without facebook is no different than life with facebook. Facebook serves a need for communicating with friends, but so does e-mail, instant messaging, and the phone. 80's-style BBS's served the same purpose, and I would say they qualify as "social networking."
    • by rickb928 (945187) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @07:07PM (#21178405) Homepage
      How will I ever get along without Facebook?

      Just fine. I am, in fact. Facebook is supremely unimportant to me, and to most everyone I know. In fact, even the people I know who think they are 'active' on Facebook will admit that it's annoying, intrusive, and they use it less and less.

      Facebook is growing, I bet, mostly due to new converts coming on faster than the jaded leave.

      This will change. Buy your stock in facebook as damned soon as you can, cause it will go down in a flash. Or get bought by M$, and then it's too late.

      Ugh.

      • by FleaPlus (6935) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @08:01PM (#21178707) Homepage Journal
        Just fine. I am, in fact. Facebook is supremely unimportant to me, and to most everyone I know. In fact, even the people I know who think they are 'active' on Facebook will admit that it's annoying, intrusive, and they use it less and less.

        I'm guess you're not a college student, eh?
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Good guess.

          I'm wondering how the favorite app of college students is so darned important that it wil affect 'all of us'.

          Especially when those college students will bail on Facebook when it costs them a job.

  • Decentralisation (Score:5, Informative)

    by Arthur B. (806360) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @05:41PM (#21177623)
    I think the secret to efficient social networking is decentralization, both of content and of standards. This is achieved by the semantic web... Take a look at FOAF, it's a simple exemple of how it could work. Host a RDF/XML file anywhere describing your connections and you're done. Extend the kind of vocabulary describing your information and your relation to people at anytime using OWL.

    RDF and OWL provide ways to develop a huge social networks with different features, different takes on it , with decentralized development and decentralized content while still maintaining interoperability. Support the semantic web it rocks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework [wikipedia.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Ontology_Language [wikipedia.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_(software) [wikipedia.org]
    • Actually decentralization makes open social networking impossible. Social networks are inherently closed, and members opt in. Even if you can go trapezing through social networks collecting data, it is most certainly a violation of someone's privacy to copy their data without their permission to a new location, and your new tool is DOA if you have to get every member's approval to free their data. If you can't copy their data out, your new network is also screwed, because you'll have dead pointers all ov
      • Sorry, i should be clearer. Decentralization without 100% open access to outside networks makes any effort to "free" data from proprietary networks impossible. What i describe could be considered decentralized in a sense (in that parts of a universal network would be owned by different entities), but there would have to be agreement on what sort of interface would be used for reciprocal transactions (friending across disparate pars of the network), so it would still need a centralized standards body to de
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Looks like a lot of nice theory and such, but WHERE is there a working prototype, something we can sink our teeth into, sniff, or hug?

      What the thing might have or should have -- and this will hurt feelings -- is a measurement to show relationship (whatever kind it is) based on communication instances, volume, and more. Obviously, this means reading email between senders. I would not say go as far as posting the content.

      But, say these "actors":

      John
      Vinh
      Mary
      Ving
      Oster
      Oscar
      Susan
      Kumiko
      Davinder

      KNOW each other and
      • Re:Decentralisation (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Arthur B. (806360) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @06:13PM (#21177929)
        The point is not to actually have decentralization but rather the possibility to have it. To take an analogy think of open source projects, the point is not to fork them - on the contrary - but the ability to do so creates incentive that affect the result even though it's only one trunk.

        Once a standard is accepted, there are less network effects. Think of email for example, since SMTP has such a long history it means almost anyone can have an email server. Sure gmail, yahoo mail hotmail or whatever will represent most of the traffic but it doesn't matter. Contrast this with IM... lack of interoperability creates huge network effect, the switching cost is very high because you need to coordinate with all of your contacts to switch.

        If social network rely on semantic web languages, the competition between websites providing hosting / editing of information will be much more efficient than in the current system... outdated network won't die, they will just merge with the additional vocabulary from newer trendier sites. Innovative networks won't starve because they'll be able to piggy back on existing networks.

        Eventually, websites will have value not by being "the biggest" or "the one where most of your friends are" but by providing the best description of your relationships with people or the most useful tools to extract the most relevant information out of your data.
  • by sethstorm (512897) * on Tuesday October 30 2007, @05:42PM (#21177633) Homepage
    It's about time that there was some way to focus on the social network you're already with versus wading through "invitation-only hype" to get there.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      How about a meta-social-network. You create an account and it registers with all the popular social networking sites. it then meta moderates your friends, invites, spam, etc into one central thingy. Then you can just focus on your friends whoever they are registered with.
  • Privacy? Facebook? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SuperBanana (662181) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @05:44PM (#21177655)

    API. While privacy advocates have been concerned about Google for the past several years, most of us are just beginning to comprehend Facebook's growing impact on who, when, what and how we connect with friends

    Especially since we just learned that Facebook considers it a "perk" to allow their employees to surf people's profiles, read their email (which they're pushing HARD to get people to use as a sort of bastardized webmail) and see their "private" photos and such.

    Oh yeah, and get your password, log in to your account, and upload explicit photos. [valleywag.com]

    • I thought serious companies we're supposed to not give employees access to customer passwords.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Centralized data source? The operators of the data source are always a security concern. They need to be both honest (and not invade your privacy) and noble (and not sell your data to third parties for a profit). It seems like pointing this out is the focus of the article, but it is not new information. Decentralized data source? You operate what data goes where, but it is a much harder system to support. The reason MySpace and Facebook are popular is because they are easy-to-use and non-technical pe
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        With Microsoft, maybe it is time to delete anything personal from the site.

        If you already put anything on Facebook that really shouldn't be there, it is far too late to take it down now. People don't seem to grasp the Ollie North effect: just because you "deleted" something doesn't mean it was removed from existence. Google won't even guarantee that it can permanently delete anything, and any major site is going to retain archived records for an indefinite period, which means it can still be distributed
  • congratulations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Tuesday October 30 2007, @05:46PM (#21177669) Homepage
    if you want convenience, you don't get privacy

    if you want privacy, you don't get convenience

    and some people are shocked, shocked i tell you, to find out that a lot of people don't treat their private life with the security protocols of a swiss bank. because they simply don't care

    next nonissue please
      • sometimes, privacy is of secondary importance

        a good example being: you just provided one above, thanks

        a lot of people, slashdot being hotbed of such privacy fundamentalists, are of this weird hyperactive hysterical panic over every privacy transgression: showing your receipt when you leave a store, cameras in the innercity, etc.

        in their mind, they can't balance some prudent, common sense situations where, frankly, your privacy doesn't matter. at all

        privacy is AN issue to consider on complex topics. it is not THE issue. sometimes, privacy is the most important concern. and other times, privacy ranks lower in importance than other concerns. like before you get on an airplane. there are people in this world who want to blow up airplanes. therefore, people have to submit to privacy intrusions before getting on airplanes. beginning and end of story

        but you listen to some people, and it's like the second coming of hitler, the shocktroops of a new fascism. well yeah, if you got your social education from a comic book and you are a paranoid schizophrenic, i guess
  • Building an Open Source version of Facebook is probably one of the smartest thing people can do right now in this Web 2.0 (*shudder*) world. More to the point, privacy advocates should be actively boycotting Facebook if they know what is good for them. I refuse to use it. The people who maintain it have too much power and it has reached a level of social and interpersonal networking utility that trumps novelty and freedom for conformity.
    • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @06:54PM (#21178299)
      Branding & peer pressure.

      If you think millions of kids are signing up to Facebook for its function, you're probably wrong. Most likely they're doing this to be in with the groovy (or whatever they're called now) kids. That relies on branding and brand awareness.

      An OSS facebook has no branding and coolness (perhaps geekiness, but that is not cool). Just like Coke would not care about an opensource cola, Facebook does not care about an open source service.

      And do you really think that youngsters are worried about privacy?

  • Why does facebook need to be replaced by something open source? Is it offensive for them to make money?
    • It must be open source so we can figure out it's weaknesses and hack it to pieces.
    • You idiot. Where in the summary, or the article, does anyone take issue with Facebook generating a profit?
    • Why does facebook need to be replaced by something open source? Is it offensive for them to make money?

      Uh, yeah. Exactly. Which is why we need an open-source replacement for MySQL, too, since it must also be offensive that MySQL AB makes money.

      Where does the idea that open source is inextricably tied to opposition to people making money come from? Certainly, that's not the reason behind IBM or Sun's open-source efforts, or lots of other companies'.

    • Because we'll NEED one. Especially since over 800 FaceBook users do NOT want microsoft's paws all over facebook:

      http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=3261815073 [facebook.com]
      ----
      Don't let microsoft buy facebook
      Business - General

      Size:
      890 members
      New:
      56 More Members

      Profile updated on Friday

      -----

      And that's not the ONLY group in Facebook now wanting ms owning or having control in some way over user information, f/b direction, etc.
  • XFN perhaps? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by improfane (855034) <improfane@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday October 30 2007, @06:21PM (#21178009) Homepage Journal
    XFN, the XHTML Friends aims to identify relationships with links.

    Imagine if everybody had a blog that used OpenID. This could be decentralized. Friends could then login with OpenId and be identified what relationship they are with the OpenID URL from XFN.

    http://gmpg.org/xfn/ [gmpg.org]
  • Not the best idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ukpyr (53793) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @06:30PM (#21178095)
    Cloning Facebook would be pointless. Unless your providing something above and beyond what Facebook offers, why bother? Average users won't be engaged by the privacy angle and so, won't switch.

    Cool idea though. The real take away is that creating services like facebook are fairly trivial from a development standpoint. All these features are being reabsorbed by the various web app framework makers right now. Building a facebook2 should take a lot less than a quarter billion : )
  • OpenQabal (Score:4, Informative)

    by psykocrime (61037) <mindcrime@cpphack e r . c o . uk> on Tuesday October 30 2007, @06:38PM (#21178179) Homepage Journal
    There are probably other FOSS projects to create a truly decentralized, federated social-networking and collaboration package, but the one I'm intimately familiar with is
    OpenQabal [java.net]. OQ is all about developing social-networking and collaboration software that puts users in control of their own information (including the much mentioned "social graph"), supports identity federation, and facilitates distributed conversations. Development is just getting started, but we're working off of a couple of existing code-bases to get a headstart.

    Disclaimer: I'm the originator, chief architect and, so far, sole developer on the project, so everything I say may be considered biased, slanted, unreliable, or whatever else your skeptical little heart pleases.
  • by Tarlus (1000874) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @06:50PM (#21178259)
    And sadly, those of us who are involved programmers in the FOSS community aren't social enough to have a Facebook profile.
  • I think I missed a boat somewhere. :)

    I don't understand the appeal of sites like "Facebook" or "Myspace". What they look like to me is web-based personal-website-creation tools. What is so interesting about a site that lets people make web sites about themselves? What am I missing? I already have a web site hosted on my own domain. Why would I want a Facebook or Myspace web site?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I don't understand the appeal of sites like "Facebook" or "Myspace". What they look like to me is web-based personal-website-creation tools. What is so interesting about a site that lets people make web sites about themselves? What am I missing? I already have a web site hosted on my own domain. Why would I want a Facebook or Myspace web site?

      Speaking only for myself, it's the "social" aspect that I find value in. I like meeting new people and find social-networks like facebook pretty good for that. Being
    • by rueger (210566) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @08:02PM (#21178711) Homepage
      In anyone's life there are hundreds or thousands of people that know you, but with whom your relationship doesn't rank quite high enough to merit weekly or even monthly e-mails or phone calls. That doesn't mean you wouldn't like to keep track of them, where they are, or what they're doing.

      A small business may have a similar group of people who they would like to keep track of as potential customers, or who would want to know what the business is up to. Again, not your prime customers, but that second tier of interested people that a sole proprietor doesn't have time to keep in touch with.

      With Facebook you can add two or three hundred "friends" and with no further effort see on a daily basis what at least some of them are doing in their lives. They choose to Opt-in, so you can e-mail them your news without worries about backlash, and since they choose what information to display to you, you get a pretty nice picture of what matters in their lives.

      Probably two thirds of the friends that I have in Facebook [facebook.com] are people (including relatives) that I would never otherwise be in touch with.

      Plus, you can turn all of these people into Vampires.
      br
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I don't understand the appeal of sites like "Facebook" or "Myspace". What they look like to me is web-based personal-website-creation tools. What is so interesting about a site that lets people make web sites about themselves? What am I missing?

      Well, apparently, you don't have, or have ever had any friends. I'm so sorry for you. :-)

      It might be easy for you to make a website about yourself, and then other people who know you could perhaps google for your name and find it and know what you are up to. However, most people really really can't or would never do a website of themselves, or buy a domain name, or start a blog. And if you had a lot of friends who did, you wouldn't really check their blogs regularly, and you wouldn't bookmark fifty differe

  • is my social networking, mmo, blogging, news aggregator site built on foss.
  • by Derek Loev (1050412) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @07:13PM (#21178425)
    /etc/init.d/net.social stop
  • There are many forms of social networking site, from the business-oriented LinkedIn to the meet-and-greet sites like Facebook to the blogging-oriented LiveJournal and MySpace. (And even those two attract very different users.)

    The "obvious" approach for an Open Source solution is to have a core component that is fairly generic, fairly light, permits data exchange between sites no matter how they specialize, and permits plug-ins to enable that specialization. (There's no shortage of object exchange and data exchange protocols, so I really can't think of anything in the core component that couldn't be slapped together from pre-existing Open Source code.)

    You want something that's generic, because you want a reason for people to use the Open Source solution besides politics. If a person can totally customize their space to suit the specific sort - or sorts - of social networking they want to do, then you have a reason. Instead of maintaining one account for each and every type of social networking you want to do, you have one account, one repository and an infinite ways to tailor and filter it for each social circle you're interested in.

    I really can't see anybody really leaping onto Facebook II or MySpace II - if they wanted to do social networking, they'd already have accounts on the originals. The only reason anyone might want a new system is if it can do something the existing systems can't. One thing the existing systems can't do is share data. Another thing they can't do is be polymorphic. Ergo, those are the two things a FOSS social networking site would need to do to offer anything new and exciting.

    Would that be enough, though? Probably not. Hence the plugins, to allow users to include webapps and other features. Each user would then be able to do more than just include photographs and text.

    Again, would this be enough? No idea. It would have novelty and personalizability, but it may be so flexible that it's unusable, people may be getting burned out on such networks, and existing systems have the edge just by being there first.

  • by crf00 (1048098) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @08:40PM (#21178943) Homepage
    You missed one important point: I don't care about wheter my fancy profile can be imported or exported easily from somewhere else, but I need my social network to be available in any other website that I visit. Here is my explanation by example:

    Alright, I have a facebook account, and I have tons of friends, and now I come to Slashdot or some other site. I want to find out which of my friends are user of Slashdot too and I want to be able to add them into my social network in Slashdot, I want Slashdot's People modifier to work as it should without doing lots of work. I want to able to manage my network not only from Facebook but also from Slashdot, I want to find new friends through friends of friends or connection graph inside Slashdot, I want to add those friends in Slashdot and update the connection automatically to Facebook too.

    I have a blog on Blogger, but I don't want to import my social network into my Google account. I want to let only my friends to post comment to my blog, but my friends don't have Google account or don't want to create or import his/her social network to Google. I want Blogger to be able to verify some anonymous to be actually my friends before allowing to post comment.

    I have a Friendster account and I like Friendster more. I have some friends who only use Friendster and some friends who only use Facebook. I want my network to be synchronized within these 2 social network manager, and when I visit other site like Slashdot, I want to be able to import the 2 or more networks automatically.

    I have a group of high school friends in Facebook and our group decides to create a new website. The group is well managed and controlled by ensuring everyone in the group know each other and are from the same school. Our new website want to be able to allow registration only from this group of people, so we want a verification system from Facebook between our website and our group.

    I don't want to let everybody know who is my friend and how I connected to other people. I don't want to put what FOAF file on my website and let any people mine my private network information. I want to keep my social graph private and only available to my friends and sites I use, and I want authentication based on the social network. When I visit other sites like Slashdot, I don't want to tell Slashdot who are all the friends I have, I only want Facebook to find out from Slashdot that which are my friends are also using Slashdot and return the subset of list of friends. Social network should be private and it is very important to not expose it completely to public.

    This is what the things that is needed, not what fancy profile or what superpoke application. With the power of a distributed social graph, alot of powerful things can be done. Other than that, privacy is IMPORTANT and should be always kept in mind. For this to work I have an architecture in mind and I think I should write on my blog now to share with you. Nevertheless, your direction is correct and I like this idea, lets do it together and make it a better social web!

  • by westlake (615356) on Tuesday October 30 2007, @11:07PM (#21179813)
    Wired published two unusual stories describing how consumers might link together a variety of third-party services to emulate Facebook, and ultimately calling on the open-source software community to build alternatives to the service. Inspired in part by Wired, I've posted some ideas describing what would be needed for an open source architecture for social networking.

    Once communities begin to evolve around services like AIM they become very deeply entrenched. There are 47 million reasons to chose Facebook over its FOSS alternative.

    Centralization may distress the Geek, but it makes it relatively easy to monitor abuse, set parental controls, license media content and so on.

    • "slashdot could build comment moderation profiles and then offer a filter of only the type of comments I'm going to want to read"

      As if slashdot isnt enough of an echo chamber, you would like people to be more circle jerky?
      How do you know what you want to read? I think the best slashdot comments are the ones you dont expect.