Skip to main content

Decentralizing the Social Web

Can Blockchains Solve Ten Years of Standardization Failure of the Social Web?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Internet Science (INSCI 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 11551))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

For over a decade, standards bodies like the IETF and W3C have attempted to prevent the centralization of the Web via the use of open standards for ‘permission-less innovation.’ Yet today, these standards, from OAuth to RSS, seem to have failed to prevent the massive centralization of the Web at the hands of a few major corporations like Google and Facebook. We’ll delve deep into the lessons of failed attempts to replace DNS like XRIs, identity systems like OpenID, and metadata formats like the Semantic Web, all of which were re-cuperated by centralized platforms like Facebook as Facebook Connect and the “Like” Button. Learning from the past, a new generation of blockchain standards and governance mechanisms may be our last, best chance to save the Web.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Let us not forget that the first versions of Twitter actually offered the support of decentralized XMPP, and this decentralized Twitter was turned off not by the programmers, but by the management who could see no demand to support decentralization. At the time, users didn’t understand decentralization, much less want it (personal communications with Blaine Cook, founding engineer at Twitter).

  2. 2.

    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-invasion.

  3. 3.

    For a detailed metaphysical and cognitive treatment of identity, Brian Cantwell Smith’s On the Origin of Objects presents a metaphysics where objects are “carved” via registration from the underlying metaphysical flux [2].

  4. 4.

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1591/.

  5. 5.

    https://www.wired.com/2012/10/joe-postel/.

  6. 6.

    https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15376/xri-syntax-V2.0-cs.html.

  7. 7.

    https://www.w3.org/1999/04/P3P-PatentBackground.html.

  8. 8.

    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0078.html.

  9. 9.

    http://bradfitz.com/social-graph-problem/.

  10. 10.

    https://openid.net/specs/openid-authentication-2_0.html.

  11. 11.

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749.

  12. 12.

    https://openid.net/connect/.

  13. 13.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/.

  14. 14.

    https://www.iso.org/committee/45374.html.

  15. 15.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/.

  16. 16.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/.

  17. 17.

    http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/. Also see the article Open Social Networks: Bring Back Iran by Dan Brickley, inventor of FOAF: http://danbri.org/words/2008/01/07/249.

  18. 18.

    It should be noted that the first social networking sites can be considered AOL Messenger and SixDegrees, which were founded in 1996, before FOAF but also before well-known social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook.

  19. 19.

    https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html.

  20. 20.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/.

  21. 21.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/.

  22. 22.

    While there were entire books published and billions of euros spent in European Commission project grants, there is to date no working Semantic Web Services. For the details of perhaps the largest failed research attempt of the Web, see Dieter Fensel et al. [3].

  23. 23.

    http://microformats.org/.

  24. 24.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-grddl-20070911/.

  25. 25.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-rdfa-core-20150317/.

  26. 26.

    http://opengraphprotocol.org/.

  27. 27.

    https://trends.builtwith.com/cdn/Facebook-CDN.

  28. 28.

    https://schema.org.

  29. 29.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/.

  30. 30.

    RSS-dev Working Group RDF Site Summary (RSS) 1.0 2000. http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/spec.

  31. 31.

    RSS 0.2 (2002) http://backend.userland.com/rss092.

  32. 32.

    RSS 2.0 (2003) https://cyber.harvard.edu/rss/rss.html.

  33. 33.

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5023.

  34. 34.

    The vast majority using RSS 2.0, followed by Atom, and then previous RSS versions in 2018.

  35. 35.

    https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc3920.html.

  36. 36.

    XMPP also was the backbone for the ill-fated and confusing Google Wave, which was dropped by Google in 2010 although idealistic software developers such as Kune and SwellRT are working on trying to build a decentralized social web on top of XMPP.

  37. 37.

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0364.html.

  38. 38.

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0384.html.

  39. 39.

    http://pubsubhubbub.github.io/PubSubHubbub/pubsubhubbub-core-0.3.html.

  40. 40.

    https://www.w3.org/community/ostatus/wiki/images/9/93/OStatus_1.0_Draft_2.pdf.

  41. 41.

    http://activitystrea.ms/specs/atom/1.0/.

  42. 42.

    The W3C Social Activity’s scope is https://www.w3.org/Social/. Note that I organized the strategy and wrote the W3C Social Web Working Group charter.

  43. 43.

    As founder of the W3C Working Group, I stepped down when it became clear the W3C started to force RDF on the Working Group against the will of developers.

  44. 44.

    IBM seemed interested primarily in placing any patents related to the OpenSocial into W3C’s Royalty-Free patent policy.

  45. 45.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/ldn/.

  46. 46.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/webmention/.

  47. 47.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/.

  48. 48.

    Called “Solid,” see https://solid.mit.edu/.

  49. 49.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/micropub.

  50. 50.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/.

  51. 51.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/websub/.

  52. 52.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/.

  53. 53.

    https://www.wired.com/2016/06/50-million-hack-just-showed-dao-human/.

  54. 54.

    https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.

  55. 55.

    https://eips.ethereum.org/.

  56. 56.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/verifiable-claims-data-model/.

References

  1. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Sci. Am. 284(5), 34–43 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith, B.C.: On the Origin of Objects. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fensel, D., Facca, F.M., Simperl, E., Toma, I.: Semantic Web Services. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19193-0

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Fielding, R.T., Taylor, R.N.: Principled design of the modern web architecture. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. (TOIT) 2(2), 115–150 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Halpin, H.: The crisis of standardizing DRM: the case of W3C encrypted media extensions. In: Ali, S.S., Danger, J.-L., Eisenbarth, T. (eds.) SPACE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10662, pp. 10–29. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71501-8_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Halpin, H.: Semantic insecurity: security and the semantic web. In: Society, Privacy and the Semantic Web-Policy and Technology (PrivOn 2017) (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hui, Y., Halpin, H.: Collective individuation: the future of the social web. The Unlike Us Reader, pp. 103–116 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jordan, K., Hauser, J., Foster, S.: The augmented social network: building identity and trust into the next-generation internet. First Monday 8(8) (2003). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1068/988

  9. Lim, D.: Patent Misuse and Antitrust Law: Empirical, Doctrinal and Policy Perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Mühleisen, H., Bizer, C.: Web data commons-extracting structured data from two large web corpora. LDOW 937, 133–145 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ostrom, E.: Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwartz, P.M.: Property, privacy, and personal data. Harv. L. Rev. 117, 2056 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Troncoso, C., Isaakidis, M., Danezis, G., Halpin, H.: Systematizing decentralization and privacy: lessons from 15 years of research and deployments. Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol. 2017(4), 404–426 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vrandečić, D., Krötzsch, M.: Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Commun. ACM 57(10), 78–85 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harry Halpin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Halpin, H. (2019). Decentralizing the Social Web. In: Bodrunova, S., et al. Internet Science. INSCI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11551. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17705-8_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17705-8_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17704-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17705-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics