Jeff Sayre Webtrepreneur » WebID

Who Should Own the Internet?

Jeff Sayre — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:00:49 +0000

The genesis for this article came from reading this interesting piece by @novaspivack about his honored invitation to participate in the e-G8 Forum—a gathering of global Internet leaders to be held right before this year’s G8 Summit in Paris. Nova asked his readers what they thought were the key issues to communicate.

As I began to compose a response to Nova’s query, it soon became clear that I had too much to say for a blog comment and decided that it was more fitting to write an article for my own site and then simply point Nova to it.

The Rights of the Internet and of its Users

If I were to attend the e-G8 Forum, what is the one big question that I think needs to be answered? Simple. Who owns the Internet?

If I were to attend the e-G8 Forum, what big issues would I push? Simple. I would stress two things: Global Internet democracy and Internet user rights.

What do I mean by global Internet democracy?

I’m not talking about a political movement to ensure that all peoples of the world are granted freedoms that those of use who are fortunate to live in real democracies experience—although that is of course vital to our survival as a species. Instead, I’m talking about the Internet being granted its own rights and freedoms—freedoms to grow, to prosper, to evolve unencumbered by corporate or governmental red tape as if it were its own emerging metaphysical entity.

The Internet has become our global data ecosystem. It is an evolutionary force in the speciation of humanities’ communication and computation infrastructure. As a result of the ease with which data of all types flows around the global, and with the increasing connections made to this data on a daily basis, our species is on the verge of seismic and profound changes.

In just a few decades, the Internet has grown like a developing nervous system, transcending national boundaries, shrinking geographic distances, dissolving geopolitical barriers, and binding many of us together into a single, global network. If allowed to continue its course unshackled by shortsighted power players, then it may become humankind’s most powerful, liberating, unifying, and transformational force.

What do I mean by Internet user rights?

With the recent net neutrality setbacks, discussions of the United States creating its own Internet kill switch, and the Commerce Department’s National ID initiative, informed netizens are right to be concerned about the future of their Internet freedoms.

In a free society, we should strive toward letting individuals, not governments or corporations, be in control of their personal data—an issue made painfully clear by the lack of real data portability among the Web-2.0-styled closed social nightclubs. We should advocate for the Internet rights of user-centric identity control, data ownership, and net equality for our data packets. These should be considered sacrosanct rights for all the Earth’s netizens.

There are a few promising projects in the works that address these issues. For example, the Freedom Box Project is working to create small, cheap, open-sourced personal servers that will return “power to the users over their networks and machines, returning the Internet to its intended peer-to-peer architecture”; the Diaspora Project offers users a distributed version of a Facebook-like social network; and the WebID protocol is creating an open distributed identity standard. These projects, and others in this space, need to be nurtured and given the liberty to proceed without regulation.

Collective and Connective Intelligence versus Myopic Dissonance

In my article, The HyperWeb: it’s All About Connections, I make an important point about the dangerous possibility that the Internet’s full potential might be purposely curtailed as a result of the myopic desires of a few power players:

Just like natural speciation, the continued evolution of the HyperWeb is not guaranteed. As with all evolutionary processes, advancements (innovations) may stop at a certain point.

The Web is a democratizing force that can help redistribute wealth and power. That is antithetical to most large companies interests—and a number of countries as well. Apple, Twitter, Facebook–and of course the phone and cable companies–want as much control as possible. They are fighting for control of the Web, not for the health of the Web.

It’s possible that for political, societal, or economic reasons–or some combination thereof–that the HyperWeb’s evolution may be curtailed. For instance, due to myopic business leaders, scared political leaders, or an uneducated, apathetic citizenry, humanity’s journey on the HyperWeb may not progress past Web 2.0 or Web 3.0.

The emergence of a truly Social Web will require not only policies that guarantee and protect the Internet’s freedom to grow, but also an informed netizenry that fights for its rights and freedoms. To date, neither of these prerequisites have been met.

The key message to communicate to the G8 leaders is that the world is struggling to become a global community and that a healthy, unfettered Internet may be our best insurance policy toward bringing that vision to fruition.

It is crucial that governments and corporations establish programs and invest in infrastructure that enable and ensure distributed services from identity, to micropayments, to unfettered mesh networks. It is critical that governments propose policies and enact laws that ensure user-centric ownership and control of personally-created and contributed data.

Let the people’s voices and data be freely heard and transmitted across the Internet. Let no one nation or corporation put up barriers to the Internet’s evolution no matter what the consequences may be to outdated notions of sovereignty.

Who should own the Internet? No corporation, no government, no organization, no individual. Instead, like the Earth, it should own itself.

My Related Articles

Flowing Your Identity Through the Social Web

Jeff Sayre — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:42:21 +0000

Some social networking platforms are beginning to buy into data portability. Whereas any step toward opening up the closed data-silo islands is a positive step, the real question is what does data portability actually mean?

Data portability is defined as the ability to “bring your identity, friends, conversations, files and histories with you, without having to manually add them to each new service.”

Does this really solve the most important issue that users face when spelunking the depths of the social networking space?

This is the fundamental defect with the notion of data portability on the closed Web. The duplication of a user’s data across multiple networks.

While it’s great that a user has the flexibility, the freedom, even the right to take their data with them, in effect they are not taking anything with them. Users are not actually porting anything from one site to another. Porting implies the moving of an entity from one location to another, the transferring of data from one machine to another.

In reality, data portability is about giving users the freedom and ability to grab a copy of their current dataset and paste it into yet another data silo. They are not actually moving their data as much as copying it from one silo to another. So, their data is now duplicated across multiple locations.

The data silo (the social network) from which the data was copied (“moved”), does not delete the content—often even after a user requests the deletion of their account. Why? Because a member’s data, the content, is one of the most important business assets the social network owns. It is their key competitive advantage.

This is the fundamental defect with the notion of data portability on the closed Web. The duplication of a user’s data across multiple networks makes it even harder for a given user to control their identity, privacy, and Web presence.

What most people call a Web identity is simply an identifier. The true representation of an individual on the Web is what I describe as the set of all their identity graphs.

I don’t want my personal data exported, copied, replicated throughout the Web. I am for data redundancy where it’s efficient and necessary, but exporting a copy of my dataset (or subset) from one social graph to another does not make sense. You are duplicating your effort. You are splitting up–or more accurately duplicating part of–your identity graph into little pieces and then strewing them into different locations, placing them in multiple, closed data silos.

Don’t get me wrong. I am for true data portability. I’m just not in favor of the way it is currently implemented by the few participating social networks.

What I am proposing is a step beyond data portability that is even more user centric, that could make the Internet a truly open space, that would help usher in the Social Web.

What is Identity on the Web?

Before introducing my concept, it’s important to understand a key difference between my views of Web identity and the mainstream definition.

The commonly-accepted definition of a Web identity is a digital representation of a user. It is one of many possible personae that an individual may have on the same social network or among all the networks in which a given person participates. But I believe this definition discounts the individual in the equation.

In my article, Thinking Outside the Privacy Box, I discuss my philosophical views about identity on the Web. In short, what most people call a Web identity is simply an identifier. The true representation of an individual on the Web is what I describe as the set of all their identity graphs.

Enter Identity Flowability

In our service-centric Web-2.0 world of social networks where each new service is in effect a closed data silo, data portability is an important issue. What I’m suggesting is that the next focus of the Social Web should be to obviate the need for data portability.

Instead of data portability, the Social Web needs to champion the concept of Identity Flowability. Identity Flowablility is the easy movement of and control over a given identity graph by a given user.

Identity Flowablility enables a user to store any part of their identity graph in the places that they choose and then allow other sites to reference that data from those places—not copy the data from those places. Data would be semantically marked up to facilitate their auto discoverability for sharing between other sites. Access rights could easily be assigned.

WebIDs could become the cornerstone in the user-centric Social Web.

Thus the concept of Identity Flowablility is to provide each user with an easier, more efficient, and effective mechanism with which to control their entire IdentitySpace. It creates a user-centric container through which data content and privacy rights could be better managed and controlled.

How would this concept change the Social Web? Instead of the quantity of users a site has being its most valuable, monetizable asset, the true value proposition of each Web 3.0-enabled company would be the quality and uniqueness of their service. No longer would a large membership base necessarily equal a big asset as smaller, more nimble niche-market players could compete by offering superior services.

WebID: Helping to Flow and Control Identity

There is a very promising identification protocol that goes a long way toward creating the foundation of a flowable identity. It’s called WebID—in particular, a FOAF+SSL WebID. If you are interested in identity flowability, I encouraged you to learn more about WebIDs and how they could become the cornerstone in the user-centric Social Web.

My Related Articles

Also See

An interesting six-minute video presentation graphically discussing the issues with OpenID: OpenID: Identity Service or Identity Platform

For an interesting, possible alternative to today’s closed-siloed Web, visit the Consortium for Local Ownership and Use of Data. Their task is challenging but in tune with my sentiment expressed above.

Thinking Outside the Privacy Box

Jeff Sayre — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:51:04 +0000

When it comes to issues of privacy and identity, the Web continues to experience growing pains. People speak of privacy and identity management as if they were separate issues. I believe that managing your personal identity is tantamount to managing your privacy. In effect, what is termed Privacy 2.0 and Identity 2.0 are really one and the same thing.

There are differing software tools, protocols, and specifications in the Privacy 2.0 and Identity 2.0 realms. There are also differences between how corporations address privacy policy and identity management. But these are just semantically-packaged terms used for the convenience and profit of startups, conference organizers, rights advocates, and the gurus who coined the terms.Identity is not your OpenID, WebID, Facebook, or Twitter account. Those are simply identifiers, of which a user may have many different ones across the Web

The reality is that, when looking at these supposedly disparate issues from the viewpoint of the individual, the differences disappear. And when looking at the topics of privacy and identity, in my opinion, the only viewpoint that matters is that of the individual.

So, privacy management tools and protocols are nothing more than identity management tools and protocols. Why is this the case?

Defining Identity

In David Kirkpatrick’s book, The Facebook Effect, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg states that “Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.” What Zuckerberg is actually saying is that having two accounts on Facebook, or any other social network, is a problem. Whereas this can be a real issue, Zuckerberg makes the same mistake that most people make—conflating a user’s account with their identity.

Identity is not a username and password combination. Identity is not your OpenID, WebID, Facebook, or Twitter account. Those are simply identifiers, of which a user may have many different ones across the Web, one for each social network site. In fact, as mentioned above, it is possible that a given individual might have more than one account, more than one identifier, at a given social network. These alternate accounts (referred to as alts for alternate “identities”), are just another aspect of the individual’s overall identity. Alts are not separate identities—no matter how much the owner of an alt identifier tries to make it.

The IdentitySpace is that part of a user’s identity graph that they personally generated. It is the subset of their identity graph that they create, and therefore should own and have sole access to controlling.Now, even if a user has carefully selected to join only those sites that offer the option to register via OpenID Connect, their single OpenID is not their identity. It is just an identifier. So, OpenID Providers are not identity providers, they are identifier providers.

What is identity on the Web, then? Identity is your presence strewn throughout the Web. It is the sum total of all your verified activity on the Web (blog, forum, and social network posts, video, music, and photo uploads, etcetera), your associated interactions with others, and their comments about and interactions with you. That makes up what can best be thought of as your identity graph.

When we talk about privacy control on the Web, then, we are not talking about the ability of users to totally control their identity graph. Obviously, a given user can theoretically control only part of their identity graph. Why is this the case? Because each user can exert only so much control over what someone on the Web thinks and says about them. That part of their identity graph is controlled by others.

So what are we trying to accomplish by allowing users partial access to and control over their identity graph? What kind of privacy, identity controls can reasonably be provided to users?

The IdentitySpace: Privacy and Identity in a Semantic World

From a user’s perspective, identity control on the Web is about offering fine-grained control over the data that they personally generate. It is not about offering tools to control their entire identity graph, to control the subset of their identity graph generated by others.

Do users have any options for managing that part of their identity graph that is created and controlled by others? Yes. It is called reputation management and there are some fee-based services that offer users some concrete means with which to do just that. But in a free society whenever two or more people are involved in creating an identity graph, it will never be possible for each individual to be able to control their entire identity graph.

This last issue is where a user’s Web of Trust (WOT) can help. By carefully choosing with whom a user interacts, they can build a network, a web, of trusted individuals. This web of trusted individuals can more easily vouch for the user’s reputation than a more loosely defined network of associates. This Web of Trust can also be used as part of an authorization framework that utilizes FOAF+SSL and WebIDs.

In my perfect Web world, the IdentitySpace would be a global, distributed, decentralized dataspace which any one person, corporation, or government could access. The ACLs of each unique IdentitySpace–the datasets created, owned, and controlled by an individual user–would determine what subset of data a given query would return and how and where that data could be used. Individuals would be free to release more of their data for use, or restrict its consumption.

The key here is that users remain in control of their primary, personal data no matter where their Internet journeys and sojourns may take them. While a user would have little control over what other people may post about them, they would maintain control and ownership over the data that they personally generate. They would control their IdentitySpace. 

There are existing ontologies and protocols in the Semantic Web stack that can readily be adopted to offer users the fine-grained identity management that they desire. A wonderful summation of these technologies can be found here.

My Related Articles

See Also:

A thought-provoking presentation on open source, freedom, privacy, and identity. It’s by Eben Moglen, the founder, Director-Counsel, and Chairman of the Software Freedom Law Center.

Repackaging the Promise of the Social Semantic Web

Jeff Sayre — Sat, 15 May 2010 20:23:27 +0000

I recently read Robert Scoble’s blog post, Privacy Reboot Needed. He makes a compelling case for the possible benefits accrued to each Web citizen that volunteers to expose their entire activity stream–across their various social networks–for all to see.

However, there is one comment that Robert makes at the end of his piece that demonstrates that we in the Social Semantic Web space have a ways to go to get our message across. He states that:

If Facebook wants to be trusted it must make a privacy contract with its users that will have real consequences if Zuckerberg throws it under the bus. I don’t know what that looks like. This is why the alternatives to Facebook just don’t matter either. They all could break their privacy contract with us. Even Google or Microsoft could and we all know it. So, we’re just going to have to live in this new world where privacy is a myth.

As someone who is tapped into the pulse of the InterWebs, Scoble’s statement was somewhat of a shock. How can Robert Scoble not have heard about the promise of distributed social networks powered by the Semantic Web? How can he not understand some of the virtues of a fully-actualized Social Semantic Web?

What he states is true only for Facebook alternatives that offer more of the same—the closed data silos that remain under the control of an entity other than its users. What he fails to mention are those proposals that will put each user back in control of their own identity, privacy, and data. The only way that a privacy contract could be broken in that scenario is if a user breaks it with him or herself.

There are a number of us Semantic Web / Linked Data folks who are working on bringing this ideal to fruition. As an example of one such proposal, see my article, A Flock of Twitters: Decentralized Semantic Microblogging. Another recent proposal that has received significant attention is diaspora.

User-centric, distributed platforms like these will remove the issue of who owns our data and who decides its fate as it will be each individual who controls, who owns their data. These platforms will be the next evolution of the Web. As I conclude in my article, A Flock of Twitters:

It’s time to return to the original concept of the Web-based Internet—an interconnected, decentralized and distributed, open and independent cacophony of individuals who control their own Webspace, operate their own communication channel, and freely communicate with others without having to worry about a central point of failure…The only way [for that to happen] is by leveraging the power of the Semantic Web.

The promise of a fully-actualized Social Semantic Web is to firmly place the control of one’s identity and privacy back into the hands of the Web’s citizens. If our work in making that dream come to reality is going to succeed, we must better craft our message, we must better communicate the virtues of a user-centric, user-controlled Social Semantic Web.

Related Articles

The Semantics of the Semantic Web: Don’t Confuse the Concept with the Movement
Thinking Outside the Privacy Box
Regaining Control of Privacy and Identity: It’s up to Each Individual
Privacy in the Facebook Era
Flocking To the Stream

Regaining Control of Privacy and Identity: It’s up to Each Individual

Jeff Sayre — Sun, 02 May 2010 17:57:05 +0000

This is a follow-up post to my article, Privacy in the Facebook Era. It was originally a reply to a comment by Chris Messina in that post. As this topic continues to be relevant, I’ve decided to extract my comment from that post, revise it, add to it, and turn it into an article.

Personal freedoms, control over one’s privacy, and the ability to manage one’s identity on the Web have never been in more jeopardy. With Facebook’s continued war on personal privacy, the day when a user no longer has any rights to control their own data is closer at hand. The question is, How should society respond?

Of course, Facebook–or any other corporation–is free to offer services and manage their user base in anyway that benefits their stakeholders—as long as they do not break the laws under which they are obligated to operate. Individuals have the freedom to decide whether or not they agree with Facebook’s policies, in particular as they pertain to privacy and the use of their personal data. They can choose not to use Facebook, Twitter, or any other Social Web network.

I have no issue with corporations making a profit, I am a businessman myself. My argument is that society should not feel comfortable when a few individuals (or in this case a single person) make broad, sweeping decisions about how an individual’s data is managed.

Society should not be complacent or apathetic when a large corporation like Facebook continues to assail personal privacy on one front while purporting to be the de facto provider of Web-based identity on the other. Free societies should strive toward assisting individuals to gain control over their personal data.

Currently, there are inherent barriers to providing users with an easy-to-use mechanism that grants fine, granular control over personal data on the Internet and Web. Most users have their personal data strewn throughout myriad, disparate data silos, across different closed social networks. This makes it difficult to create tools that offer users an efficient and effective way to manage their data, to manage their on-line identity.

Some of the initiatives that open a user’s data up to other applications and networks–the Open Stack, for instance–begin to address this issue. But, as long as users’ personal data remains effectively siloed in government and corporate databases, this vision will not be obtainable.

As the Web matures and new technologies such as Semantic Web protocols and tools become available, solutions to the proverbial Privacy 2.0 and Identity 2.0 debate are possible. Whether corporate adoption rates of those solutions will be sufficient to make them viable is unclear. This is were the wishes and desires of a free society come into play. If there is a sufficient cry to adopt new identity-management protocols, then perhaps we can effect change.

In my article, “A Flock of Twitters: Decentralized Semantic Microblogging”, I offer one such path to a user-driven, user-centric identity management and privacy solution. It does not rely on corporate adoption but instead puts the power back in the hands of individuals.

But there are other solutions that offer great business opportunities to companies that truly listen to users’ concerns over the usurpation of their personal privacy and identity. In the coming decade, those companies that build new interfaces and provide new services that facilitate user-centric identity and privacy management will find their visions rewarded. There is plenty of room for both open source and proprietary solutions in this space.

Whereas Facebook has shown great acumen at growing their small business into a global behemoth, it has lost sight as to the roots of its success—their users’ trust. If the Web’s citizens take a stand and demand that their personal privacy and identity remain their domain, and not the domain of corporations or governments, then companies like Facebook could very well end up being a relic of a Wild-west Web, a bygone time where anything and everything was acceptable in the name of profit.

It is up to society, to the Web’s citizens, to decide how the issue of privacy and identity will turn out. If only a few voice their opinions, if only a few are cognizant of this crisis and its negative ramifications, then Facebook and other corporations will decide how privacy and identity are managed.

If you think privacy and identity are too important to let the few decide how they are managed, then it’s time for you to act. Write about it on your blog, tweet about it, retweet my article, do whatever it takes to get those who trust you in your various social networks to take note, to listen, to understand, and to ultimately act.

UPDATE: April 20, 2011: With Facebook being credited with facilitating the Middle East uprisings and their desires to move in to China, it appears that they may be bowing to pressure to curb free speech in certain parts of the world.

UPDATE: May 8, 2010: Jeff Jarvis published an interesting article on this topic. See Confusing *a* public with *the* public.

A Flock of Twitters: Decentralized Semantic Microblogging

Jeff Sayre — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:30:09 +0000

In my last article, Flocking To the Stream, I ended with this thought about the growing issue of social-networking fatigue:

…as the number of streams continue to increase and as the flow rate of each stream picks up, people will grow tired of having to subscribe to, having to join yet-another-stream phenomenon (YASP). Does the Web truly need additional stream providers each with their own data silos? Is there a user-centric solution to this rapidly growing, overflowing-stream issue that puts YASP to rest once and for all?

This article answers these two questions in great detail but the succinct preview version is as follows:

The Web does not need additional stream providers each who exert significant control over a vast number of individuals, each who require their users to have a separate new user account (a new digital identity)
The Web does not need additional closed data islands (data silos)
The Web does need a means with which each individual can create, maintain, and control their own identity, efficiently and effectively manage stream conversations, and therefore not be beholden to a few, large data-silo stream providers
The only way to accomplish point three is for the emergence of a distributed, decentralized, Open Source microblogging ecosystem that leverages the power of the Semantic Web

Table of Contents

Since some of the following may be too generic for more advanced readers, I’m providing this Table of Contents to help readers navigate to those parts with which they may have the most interest. The first four sections are a general review of the problem and solution. The rest of the article provides my detailed thoughts on this issue.

A Web of Damned Streams
A Flock of Twitters
Why Decentralized?
Why Semantic?
Evolving Nova’s Stream Concept
A Drop of An Idea
Channeling Your Stream, Seining Your River
The MicroBlogOcean
Social Web Versus Social Network
Anatomy of a Drop
Some Technical Thoughts
Some Early Players in This Space
Conclusion

Although you should feel free to skip ahead, doing so might result in missing a crucial connection.

A Web of Damned Streams

From a user’s perspective, one of the issues with YASP is that their Web identity is strewn throughout the Web with some of their thoughts clumped in one data silo while others are deposited in another data silo. This makes it very difficult for each user to manage all their streams and associated relationships.

What happens when a new, exciting stream comes along? When a new Stream comes along, users have to weigh the potential benefits of membership against the likely pain and inconvenience caused by having to create a new identity, build a new network, and manage yet another stream.

Social networks benefit from what is called user lock in—the very real fact that, most things being equal between social networks, a user will likely decide to stick with a social network because it takes too much work to move data from one site to another. So, instead of moving their data and possibly closing their account, a user will simply open up another account at a competing social network.

Of course, this version of lock in assumes that social networks allow the moving of, or the copying of, their members’ data from one network to a competing network. In reality, the vast majority of social networks do not even allow their members free access and control over their personal data.

The issue facing most Web 2.0 users is that they have a multitude of accounts, each with its own username and password, each associated with a specific web service, and each located in a separate, independent repository—the proverbial walled garden of disparate user data, the omnipresent data silo.

Although most of the large social networks do expose a portion of their users’ data via proprietary APIs, they do not run an open network. They guard their data closely, assuming ownership of all their users’ personal streams. It is easy to understand why this is the case. A social network’s competitive advantage is their users’ data.

The current Web is dominated by the Web-2.0 social networking meme. It is not a healthy, vibrant Web. In fact, the current Web is becoming filled with damned streams, silos whose data barely trickles out and are not openly accessible to the rest of the Web. Google Buzz, Facebook, and Twitter could almost be considered alternate Webs, their members’ data mostly disconnected from the greater Web.

From a user’s standpoint, it is even worse. Most of these fortresses have rules and regulations that make it difficult for users to freely access and use their data elsewhere. Two years ago, Robert Scoble found out this shocking fact when he tried to move his social graph from Facebook to another service.

What’s the result of all these damned data silos? The promise of the Social Web is hindered. Later I’ll discuss the difference between the Social Web and social networks.

A Flock of Twitters

Instead of people becoming more dependent on highly centralized, proprietary microblogging services like Twitter, FriendFeed, Google Buzz, and Facebook, What if users could embed microblogging capabilities into their personal websites?

I don’t mean simply tie their Twitter, Facebook, and other social media streams into their website via behind the scenes, proprietary APIs—which they can already do. I mean actually host their own microblogging platform, become their own microblogging provider.

People should be able to subscribe directly to your microblog, to you and not to one of your myriad profiles on someone’s data silo. The way it currently works is that a user interested in what you have to say not only has to join Twitter (or Facebook, or Google Buzz, etc), but they must also subscribe to your stream on that particular service.

But what if a user who was interested in what you had to say could simply subscribe to your microblog, in essence subscribe to you? What if they could pull microblogging content from your site that originated directly on your site? What if there were a flock of Twitters and not just a single, centralized Twitter?

Why Decentralized?

Whereas a flock of Twitters may seem like an interesting concept, you may wonder if there actually is a benefit to creating a decentralized, distributed microblogging platform.

Part of the original vision of the Internet was to create a distributed communications network that did not have a central point of failure. The Web added a layer that allowed anyone, in theory, the opportunity to operate their own communications platform or channel (called a website).

But today’s Web-2.0 data-siloed social networks have created a handful of massive points of communication failure in the daily lives of hundreds of millions of people.

As an example, over the past two months, Twitter has experienced increasing unreliability. In fact, on January 20, 2010, Twitter was down for 90 minutes causing an uproar in the community. Whereas this might have been a fluke, or possibly have been related to their growth rate, the cause does not really matter. What does matter is that millions of people felt lost without their connection to their network.

This illustrates another fact of Web-2.0 life—that the promise of a Web where everyone had their own communications channel has been usurped. Although most people naively believe they do have their own communications channel by having a Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn account, in reality they are beholden to a few Web behemoths to offer them communication services.

By creating a truly decentralized and distributed microblogging platform, users can once again regain control over their Web experience and create their own communications channels. They will benefit from increased data control, data accessibility, data usability, and data security.

A final benefit to decentralized microblogging: data portability is no longer an issue when you own, host, manage, and control your own data store—at least with regard to your microblog activity. You do not have to port the data into a new silo because your data is always right where it should be—in your own silo. Your data is kept by you, managed by you, and controlled by you. You may have to move periodically your database to a new server or another web hosting firm, but that is not an issue of data portability.

Even with decentralized microblogging, there will still be data silos. The silos will just be micro silos (or solo silos) where all the data contained within each silo represents one entity and is controlled by that one entity. It is the perfect entity-to-silo ratio.

A final point. There is a theoretical limit to the number of microblog installs. It is the extant human population. Actually, it is more than that if you make allowances for the fact that businesses, governmental entities, and clubs could host and manage their own microblogs. A user, after all, does not have to be an individual person. A user can be a business.

Why Semantic?

Offering users the ability to operate their own microblogging platform is an enticing thought. But a decentralized, distributed microblogging system does not guarantee that data will be readily available and open throughout the Web.

Instead of having a few, very large closed data silos, a Web of microblogs would in essence be millions of very small closed data silos.

Why is being open important?

One of the promises of the Web in its early conception was to create a network were disparate data sources were interconnected in such a way that integration and interoperability issues went away. To accomplish that goal, data needs to be exposed.

Exposing data creates an entirely new realm of beneficial possibilities. Instead of websites being searched for matching keywords and phrases, the underlying data can be directly queried.

So, how do we open up all the micro silos? By leveraging the power of the Semantic Web.

This article will not go into a deep explanation of the Semantic Web. However, you can think about it in this broad way. Web browsers navigate hypertext; Semantic Web applications navigate hyperdata—data that is encoded with semantic markup and interconnected to other semantically-coded data in other locations. So, whereas hypertext is text linking to other text (documents), hyperdata is data linking to other data. (See 1 & 2 below)

Semantic Web applications are built using a stack of W3C-specific technologies— in particular the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and the Ontology Language (OWL). The Semantic Web technology stack is particularly important, as it provides a standardized way of encoding data without the need for a central controlling authority.

When data is semantically tagged, with the underlying metadata modeled using RDF and URIs, machines can “see and understand” the content. By this, I am not referring to some type of artificial intelligence (AI) engine that can infer meaning from data.

Instead, the data that has been encoded with semantic markup (semantic metadata) becomes structured in such a way that the intent, the meaning intended by the author is unambiguous. This is accomplished by using various ontologies (vocabularies) to tag the upper-level data with sufficient, relevant metadata that structure and meaning is added to the human-readable data.

Once data is opened up to discovery by being semantically marked up, the Web becomes a truly interconnected network.

For more information on the Semantic Web, you can start here:

Henry Story’s excellent presentation Building Secure Open & Distributed Social Networks
For a more detailed explanation of hyperdata, read Nova’s article, The Semantic Web, Collective Intelligence and Hyperdata
For more information on the Semantic Web (definitions, RDF, and development tools), visit this link
For a brief history of the Semantic Web, read James Hendler’s article, What is the Semantic Web really all about?

Since it is difficult to succinctly and accurately describe the Semantic Web in layman’s terms, I encourage you to read other sources and become well versed in the Semantic Web–its concepts, underlying technologies, and how you can participate in it.

Evolving Nova’s Stream Concept

Before I get too far into the specifics, I need to present a new interpretation of what Nova Spivack calls the Stream.

One of the powers of Nova’s Stream concept–at least in my opinion–is that it evokes the imagery of a flowing body of water. As I began gathering my thoughts for this article, it became apparent that his Stream metaphor could be expanded, could be evolved in a way that sets the table for a more meaningful discussion about decentralized semantic microblogging.

Nova describes the Stream as follows:

Just as the Web is formed of sites, pages and links, the Stream is formed of streams.

Streams are rapidly changing sequences of information around a topic. They may be microblogs, hashtags, feeds, multimedia services, or even data streams via APIs.

In my extension to his concept, I diverge somewhat from his original definition of the Stream. Instead of viewing each stream as an information flow around a particular topic, I’ve reimagined the stream as the flow of ideas from a given individual. A Stream is thus a monologue that contributes to a greater conversation.

A Drop of An Idea

In keeping with the metaphor of a flowing body of water, I envisioned a water-cycle like flow from a single idea to an ocean of open discussion. Therefore, I call my model of a decentralized microblogging ecosystem the Meta-Hydrological Model.

With that concept in mind, you can think of a single idea posted by a user as a drop. Just as a user of Twitter adds to a conversation by posting a tweet, and a user of FriendFeed or Facebook makes what is generically called a micropost, a user in this new conversation ecosystem posts a drop. So a drop is equal to a tweet is equal to a micropost.

Here is a simplified, graphical representation of the Meta-Hydrological Model (also called the Meta-Flow for short).

Click to see full size

The aggregation of all of a given user’s Drops is that user’s Stream. Viewed in this way, if a Stream is what a single user produces, then the River is the confluence of disparate users’ Streams. I’ll describe this in more detail later.

Within each user’s Stream, ideas might coalesce into specific topics. I call these Channels (Stream Channels). Channels are Drops that are grouped under a specific topic to form substream categories.

The final part of the Meta-Hydrological Model is what I call the MicroBlogOcean (MBO). The MBO is the sum total of all microblogging activity in the global conversation ecosystem. It is all the conversations, represented by all the Rivers.

Below is a natural, visual representation of this model as seen from space.

Satellite image of the Amazon River delta from NASA's Landsat GeoCover Program

Channeling Your Stream, Seining Your River

In our hydrological metaphor, a River is the confluence of disparate users’ Streams. But it is not a passive mixing of user ideas. Instead, each user has their own unique River, a River that they assemble, that they control. In particular, a River is the aggregation of all the Streams to which a given user is subscribed. It is similar to your following list on Twitter.

With Twitter, however, there is no practical way to filter the streams of those whom you follow. You subscribe to their entire stream of consciousness. Wouldn’t it be great if you could decide what thoughts, what information you let other users send flowing down your River? Wouldn’t you like the option to grab just the content in which you are truly interested?

Whereas users could of course choose to subscribe to your entire treasure trove of thoughts, by organizing your content into Channels, you provide a means whereby your subscribers can filter out what they do not care to see. They would have the option to subscribe just to your substream(s) and not your entire Stream.

Why is this important?

Well, as an example, for absolutely every person I currently follow on Twitter, I don’t care who just booted whom out as the mayor of whateverville. I don’t want that drivel polluting my pleasant paddle down my River. It adds zero value to my day and provides little if any entertainment.

I also rarely need to know (nor care to know) whenever someone has just stopped by a Starbucks, or is eating at this and such restaurant 1000 miles away, or is on a treadmill listening to Kid Rock on their fancy Zune. It’s also the case for many people whom I follow that I’m not actually interested in all the serious topics about which they micropost. In effect, I actually subscribe to them only for a small subset of their shared knowledge.

Now, to be perfectly fair, I bet some of my followers would be very glad to filter out my microposts on the Semantic Web, whereas others would be happy to stop seeing my microposts about WordPress or BuddyPress. It may also be the case that no one cares at all to see any of my general thoughts that I occasional let float down their River. I think my subscribers, my followers, should have the right to filter out what they consider to be MY drivel.

By providing a mechanism for channeling thoughts into topics, our new microblogging client would provide a better user experience. The utility of user Channels could be further improved by offering public and private Channels. A Public Channel would be visible to all and open to subscription. A Private Channel would only be available to those users who are granted access via their WebID (more on the concept of using the WebID later).

The MicroBlogOcean

As mentioned above, the totality of all microblogging activity is called the MicroBlogOcean (MBO). In this global conversation ecosystem, Drops are constantly being pushed to and pulled from the MBO cloud.

To provide and manage the myriad MBO services, a new type of SaaS model needs to be created. I call this software-based service a Confluence Hub. A confluence is the point where two or more bodies of water meet. Therefore, a Confluence Hub is the place where Drops sent by various users meet up, are processed, and wait for further action.

Notice User has only subscribed to User 3's Channel. Click for full size

This is how the process works. A user’s client sends a Drop to the closest Confluence Hub where an amalgamator combines them for transmittal to all that user’s subscribers. The Drops are organized by Channels, if any, and cached. If a Confluence Hub (CH) is down, then the Drop is automatically rerouted to the next closest hub.

An aggregate is a collection of items that are gathered together from different sources. The role of the client-side aggregator then, is to poll, to query the primary Confluence Hub Server (CHS) of each user Stream to which a user is subscribed, pulling the resultant dataset into their River on a predefined, regular interval.

Only the content the User wants gets through. Click for full size

So, whereas a user’s Drop is pushed to the closest, active Confluence Hub, the Drops of each user that they follow are pulled into their River from the MBO cloud.

Using our hydrological-based metaphor, Drops are created and stored on each owners’ site. This means any Drops that are de facto responses to someone else’s Drop are contained within disparate sites across the Web. Whereas the user’s client would cache all incoming Drops (in their River) and the application might even have an option to save a discussion to disk, the original Drop remains located in the owner’s Stream.

The Meta-Flow concept is not a perfect analogy to a natural hydrological flow. Whereas Drops do travel to Confluence Hubs, copies of those Drops are pulled into each subscribing-user’s client to form their unique River. The MicroBlogOcean therefore contains multiple references to the same original Drop and the Rivers actually flow out of the MBO rather than into it.

Although I personally believe this hydrological-based metaphor does a sufficient job of breaking down and describing the component parts of the overall decentralized microblogging ecosystem, for purposes of user understandability, the terms may need to be replaced with a more generic, globally-recognized nomenclature. Although, what is more globally recognizable than the water cycle?

Social Web Versus Social Network

When talking about the Semantic Web, it’s important to differentiate between social networks and the Social Web. These terms are not synonyms. In fact, the Social Web is not even the sum of all social networks.

Why is this the case?

Today’s social networks are nothing more than the famous walled gardens of the Web—as was previously discussed.

With their closely-guarded data silos, social networks are not full participants in the Web, they are not participants in the interconnected data ecosystem. So, unlike an ecological web (think of a food web), the Web-based Internet is not as much of an intact web as it is a land of social network islands that punctuate an ocean of truly connected websites.

The Social Web, on the other hand, is a fully functioning and healthy ecosystem were all data are globally connected. In my view, the only way to bring to fruition the promise of the Social Web is to embrace the Semantic Web.

The term Social Semantic Web is often used to differentiate between the current social-network based Web and a truly connected Web of Data. Since I believe that the Social Web requires the Semantic Web, I view the two terms as synonyms.

What might a truly connected Social Web look like?

I use this image as a graphical representation of what an open, fully linked, global Social Web would look like (see the caption for the actual description of the image). Imagine that each end point is a user creating their Drops that freely flow down their Stream, into their River, finally ending up in the MBO cloud. Each node, the point were multiple Streams converge, would be a Confluence Hub Server.

This image is a tracing of all the Internet traffic circa late 2006. It is licensed under a Creative Commons License (by-nc-sa/1.0) and created by http://opte.org/

Where would the big social networks appear on this graph?

Twitter would be a single point in this image with a few tenuous tendrils extending out representing the limited access that Twitter allows to their data silos via their proprietary APIs. There would be no lines representing conversations between users as the totality of conversation all occurs within the walled-off Twitter space.

The same holds true for Facebook, Google Buzz, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, and many of the other social networks. The lines connecting these services would be nothing more than gossamer strands representing the brute-force pushing of limited duplicate content between these data silos.

You might be thinking that conversations regularly occur between users of these platforms. For instance, I can choose to show my latest tweets on Facebook or LinkedIn, I can choose to display my latest Facebook or LinkedIn status updates on Twitter, and so forth. But these are not conversations. They are just snapshots of conversation that are occurring within other data silos.

Anatomy of a Drop

A Drop contains more than just the visible content, more than just the human-readable layer. A Drop is a packet composed of several layers, each providing additional metadata that makes the management and discovery of data more feasible.

Click to see full size

Content Layer: that part of the Drop that is actually intended to be seen by humans; also referred to as the droplet

Metadata Condensate: when the Drop is being assembled, different metadata layers are aggregated together, which are then deposited into a super-metadata layer. This layer encodes all the supporting data that makes extensibility, management, delivery, and discovery of the user’s Drop possible.

The Metadata Condensate layer is composed of five sub layers:

Rich-media Layer: pointers to associated audio, video, or picture files

Semantic Layer: the machine-readable, semantically-marked up metadata

Rights Layer: the granted usage rights for the Drop

Using the proposed Protocol for Implementing Open Access Data as a model, Drops, Channels, and even entire Streams could be marked with usage rights

Security Layer: WebID to tag Drop to specific user; whether Drop is public, private

Stream Management Layer: unique Drop ID; time stamp; GIS metadata (location-based tagging for mobile microblogging); Channel tag for grouping Drop content (allows filtering by other users); whether Drop is to be broadcast to all, a specific user group, or to one specific user; Drop broadcast delay; Drop time decay (a finite lifespan for Drop if desired); client metadata (whether Drop was sent via Web client, desktop client, via a CHS service, etc.)

Semantifying the Drop addressees several key issues that hinder current microblogging platforms. First, by providing a mechanism where machine-readable metadata can be effectively and efficiently associated with Drops, this unlocks each micro data silo, opening it up to outside services to access via query. Second, organizing, grouping, classifying Drops into Channels allows for meaningful filtering of users content. Third, by using a FOAF+SSL backed WebID, privacy and identity management across the MBO becomes possible.

Whereas users can still add tags (via micro and nanoformats) when composing each Drop–and maybe even some basic html markup, like the “a” link tag–the real benefit accrues from the automatic encoding of semantic metadata into the Drop.

Additional ontological encoding could occur on each Drop via a Semantic Interface Options box on the Drop composition panel.

It’s important to note that although each individual user will have the right to determine how much of their microblogging content is shareable across the Web and even with whom it can be shared, in concept, if a user is wishing to participate in the global microblogging community, it is assumed that they will wish others to see what they have to say.

This is just an initial concept of the structure of a Drop. It may be that one or more of the Metadata Condensate layers (or parts of a given layer) should be included under the Semantic Layer.

Some Technical Thoughts

This article is primarily a presentation of an initial concept. The technical details obviously need to be fleshed out. But I have ideas toward that end which I’ll present here in no particular order of importance.

User and Stream Management

How do users login into their Streams? How do users subscribe to another person’s Stream?

By using a combination of FOAF+SSL, the micbroblogging ecosystem would authenticate and authorize users based on their WebIDs.

So, as an example, a single user (authenticated via their WebID and FOAF+SSL) of type foaf:Person will subscribe to, will follow the Streams of many users of type foaf:Person.

NOTE: At this point some readers may be asking why OpenID, a well-known SSO, is not being suggested. The reason is that OpenID has some important limitations. But the use of FOAF+SSL does have a big limitation at this time ( thanks to nathan for pointing this out). Many smartphones do not support SSL certificates. One possible solution is to use FOAF+OpenID. But, all things being equal, a WebID backed by FOAF+SSL is more powerful, easier to use, and takes advantage of the FOAF Semantic Web ontology.

Fault Tolerance and Redudancy

Redundant distribution and replication to geo-disparate Confluence Hub Servers could provide additional fault-tolerance for those stream providers who want too ensure that their subscribers are guaranteed access to their Streams at all time. This would be very useful in crisis situations where the real-time nature of microblogging has proven extremely beneficial during several recent natural disasters.

Platform Ecosystem

My model of a decentralized semantic microblogging ecosystem (the Meta-Hydrological Model) requires three basic software components:

Personal Stream Server (PSS): the client software that a user uses to create their Stream and manage their River.

Community Stream Server (CSS): for those users who do not want to manage their own self-hosted solution, a community-based, public Stream provider is necessary. Such providers could offer the service for free or for a fee. The important issue here is that all users with an account at a Community Stream Server would be the owners of all their data, deciding how the data is used and exposed. If they wished to move their data (their Stream identity) to another server, they could easily do so. Community Stream Servers would be configured so that users could brand their identity, using their own domain names.

Confluence Hub Server (CHS): this has been discussed in more detail above. In addition to the aforementioned duties, each CHS would also be responsible for co-aggregating the realtime view of the MicroBlogOcean.

Unlike the handful of DNS root zones in the Domain Name System, the number of Confluence Hubs would not be limited by any authority. Anyone who meets a set of minimum requirements (hardware, software, and bandwidth) could host a CHS. Although anyone could download the CHS platform software, only those whose setup meet the minimum requirements would be able to initiate an active CHS service.

Client-Server Software Architecture

The software architecture of client and server, as well as the UI/UX, is beyond the scope of this article. Although I do have a few top-level suggestions/ideas:

Software stack must utilize all open-source based technologies
Use of a graph database backend (or a similar NOSQL DB) which is better suited at modeling the graph-like nature of social networks. For more details on this comment, see my Powering Startups to Become Smartups series.
Possibly the use of a language that allows for coding of a Web-based interface as well as desktop client software (Java, Python, or Ruby to name a few). One of the drivers of growth and success for Twitter has been the development of 3rd-party desktop clients. It may make sense to offer an initial version of such a client along with the Web-based interface.

These are just kernels of an idea about possible architectural considerations.

Possible Extensions to FOAF and SIOC Ontologies

As the FOAF specification states, “FOAF documents describe the characteristics and relationships amongst friends of friends, and their friends, and the stories they tell.” In the world of social networking–especially decentralized microblogging–the concept of friend can be very nebulous.

This is why microblogging services like Twitter and Google Buzz use the term follower, and FriendFeed (owned by Facebook) uses the term subscriber. It is a one-way relationship that does not have implicit reciprocity.

In other words, just because I follow you does not imply that you follow me, that you plan on following me, or that you will ever follow me. In fact, in practically all cases, users with large followings do not know and are not even aware of the vast majority of their followers.

The FOAF concepts of “friend” and “know” are often not in tight alignment with the realities of the newer social networks. A better classification of these relationships needs to be created.

A new FOAF class of foaf:Following may be all that is needed to rectify this type mismatch. A list of all the people that a given user is following could easily be compiled by querying the system for all unique foaf:Following relationships. This list could be further broken down by unique social networks by extending the query to include property foaf:account. It would equally be simple to determine all of the people who are following a given user.

Addendum: Thanks to comments below from John Breslin and Alexandre Passant who pointed out the SIOC specification does have the sioc:follows property. So, using foaf:Person with sioc:follows could properly classify a following relationship.

How should users of a globally decentralized semantic microblogging platform be classified?

Each user would be identified via their WebID and not their sioc:User type—which is utilized only for marking up the various accounts a user has throughout the Web of social networks.

Whereas the SIOC Core Ontology is designed for easy extendability, the emergence of decentralized microblogging may necessitate an addition to the core classes as the current classes do not fully capture the uniqueness of such a system.

Whereas discussions within traditional blogs and forums occur on the same site (within the same data silo), discussions on a decentralized microblogging cloud are not the same. The discussions occur across the cloud, across the Social Semantic Web. This then becomes an issue of classifying relationships within the Social Web and not between disparate social networks and their data silos.

Some Early Players in This Space

There are a few early players in the decentralized microblogging platform space and at least one in the open source centralized blogging arena. It is important to note that only one of the players below is working on a decentralized semantic microblogging implementation.

SMOB: self described as an open, distributed Semantic MicroBlogging framework
6d: self described as decentralized social network. This is not a true microblogging platform but I thought it should be included for reference.
onesocialweb: an open-source application created by the Vodafone Group described as a free, open, decentralized microblogging platform
StatusNet: the open source, centralized microblogging platform that powers Identi.ca
ADDED March 16, 2010: GNU social: A project of the Free Software Foundation to create a “decentralized social network that you can install on your own server.”
ADDED July 2, 2010: Diaspora. I’ve included this early project as it has made quite a stir across the InterWebs, raising over $200k via Kickstarter. I’ve contacted them several times to discuss how Semantic Web technologies could improve their platform but have not heard a tweet back.

Which of these is the right solution?

While all of these are encouraging entrants in the space, SMOB shows the most promise at this time as it is the only platform that is working on bringing about the Social Web through decentralized semantic microblogging.

Conclusion

It’s time to return to the original concept of the Web-based Internet—an interconnected, decentralized and distributed, open and independent cacophony of individuals who control their own Webspace, operate their own communication channel, and freely communicate with others without having to worry about a central point of failure.

The only way to build a truly open and decentralized global microblogging network is by leveraging the power of the Semantic Web. Doing so will help usher in the reality of the Social Web.

Decentralizing and individualizing Stream creation and management will help ensure that the MicroBlogOcean does not have a central point of failure and does not require a central-controlling authority. With a properly semantified and structured Stream, even efficient and effective privacy and identity management become feasible.

This article is just one drop in the bucket (yep, I had to say it). It is a first version of an evolving concept. As people provide constructive feedback and the idea gets debated, I’ll openly evolve this concept to better reflect the realities of the emerging Social Web and the technologies that will help bringing it to fruition.

Additional Background Information: Read my short post about Facebook and privacy issues: Privacy in the Facebook Era

My Related Articles About the Social Web

FOLLOW UP (March 16, 2010): A number of people have asked me via Twitter how to follow developments on this topic. Unfortunately, Twitter is not well suited for “following” ideas since there is no way to create groups. The real-time Web is not about building groups that can upload documents, create lists, and have an easily-searchable history. So, we have created the Semantic Mirco Blogging group on identi.ca. You can sign up there and participate in the discussions.

FOLLOW UP (March 20, 2010): There are a number of additional services that a distributed, decentralized semantic microblogging platform could perform. One such service would be to replace the current closed-siloed, location-based, check-in services like Foursquare, Gowalla, Brightkite, etcetera. Currently, these services are is competition for users’ time. They also pose some issues as discussed in my brief post here and this article, Check-In Fatigue. Or, Why I’m Rooting For An All-Out Location War. If users could use their own microblogging space to not only post their Drops but also to post location-based check-ins, it would allow for the filtering, the channeling, of that data so that their subscribers could opt-out of having such check-ins float down their River.

FOLLOW UP (September 15, 2010): The Diaspora project open sourced its initial source code today. You can read more about it here. Although they have come a far way, at this time Diaspora still falls short from being a fully-realized Social Web platform. Perhaps they, or the community building up around it, will semantify the codebase in the future.