Lumifer comments on The Web Browser is Not Your Client (But You Don't Need To Know That) - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (47)
I will, but I'll answer you here anyway -- sorry for taking so long to reply.
I feel I should clarify that I don't think it's "good", so much as "less bad than the alternatives".
Well, yes and no. Part of what got me on this track in the first place is the distributed nature of the diaspora. We have a network of more-and-more-loosely connected subcommunities that we'd like to keep together, but the diaspora authors like owning their own gardens. Any unified system probably needs to at least be capable of supporting that, or it's unlikely to get people to buy back in. It's not sufficient, but it is necessary, to allow network members to run their own server if they want.
That being said, it's of interest that NNTP doesn't have to be run distributed. You can have a standalone server, which makes things like auth a lot easier. A closed distribution network makes it harder, but not that much harder -- as long as every member trusts every other member to do auth honestly.
The auth problem as I see it boils down to "how can user X with an account on Less Wrong post to e.g. SSC without needing to create a separate account, while still giving SSC's owner the capability to reliably moderate or ban them." There are a few ways to attack the problem; I'm unsure of the best method but it's on my list of things to cover.
This is a huge value, though, because most extant web forum, blogging, etc software is terrible for discussions of any nontrivial size.
Is there?
That's a serious question, because I'd love to hear about alternative standards. My must-have list looks something like "has an RFC, has at least three currently-maintained, interoperable implementations from different authors, and treats discussion content as its payload, unmixed with UI chrome." I'm only aware of NNTP meeting those conditions, but my map is not the territory.
It also has to have clear advantages over the default of just having a browser with multiple tabs open.
That's an old problem. Google and Facebook would love to see their accounts be used to solve this problem and they provide tools for that (please ignore the small matter of signing with blood at the end of this long document which mentions eternity and souls...). There is OpenID which, as far as I know, never got sufficiently popular. Disqus is another way of solving the same problem.
I think this problem is hard.
That's a rather strong statement which smells of the nirvana fallacy and doesn't seem to be shared by most.
It's hard to solve better than it's been solved to date. But I think the existing solution (as described in my other reply) is good enough, if everyone adopts it in a more or less compatible fashion.
FWIW I completely agree with that statement - as long as it says "most" and not "nearly all".