Rather than respond individually to the replies on App.net, I thought it would be more appropriate to respond collectively with another post.
I send pingback (and webmention) notifications of any URLs I mention in posts on my site. If App.net supported receiving pingbacks, then you would have seen this post as a reply to your App.net post if you responded to me. Of course, pingback is one of the open standards App.net doesn't yet support, so if you replied to me on App.net, you will have found this post some other way.
"Won't (insert single point of failure free service here) achieve what he wants?"
No. This is completely missing the point. App.net should support open standards that are already in use across the web if they are trying to be something more than a social network silo.
It shouldn't take a third party to build a service that fills in for what App.net is lacking.
The "Create an Account" Problem
I should not have to create an account to join a conversation on the web. Guess who got this right? Status.net! Using Status.net, it's possible to subscribe to anybody's feed using PuSH, even if they have no idea what Status.net is!
This screenshot of a post on App.net illustrates the problem perfectly:
It's analogous to email. Can you imagine if you needed to create a Gmail account in order to send an email to someone else's Gmail address? Conversations across the web should work like conversations across email. I use my existing email address to join any email conversation. I want to use my existing website to join any web conversation.
Exactly. @tantek summarized it well in a couple notes on his site:
If you're building yet another social network and not trying to solve this, you're solving the wrong problems.
Federation: I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means
A common problem with self-described "federated" protocols is that they aren't actually federated. Email is a truly federated protocol. We have yet to see a solid player in the game for a federated web protocol.
People commonly think that just because some software can run on multiple servers that means it's federated. Really that just means it's distributed. It's easy to develop a distributed system, you don't need to talk to anybody else and you don't need to get anybody to agree. You just create your own protocol and build your own software and then deploy it.
This is the beauty of what we're working towards with the Indie Web building blocks. Everybody who is currently contributing functional code is working on their own in whatever language and environment they're used to, and we're making things talk at the protocol layer rather than the software layer.
- App.net should support open standards that are already in use across the web if they are trying to be something more than yet another social network silo.
- I should not have to create an account to join a conversation on the web. (This goes for Branch too!)
- A federated system is different from a distributed system. A federated system can be built with different code bases in different languages.