You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on The Web Browser is Not Your Client (But You Don't Need To Know That) - Less Wrong Discussion

22 Post author: Error 22 April 2016 12:12AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (47)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Error 28 April 2016 04:19:06PM 1 point [-]

At this point you can say that you'll argue your case in a future post instead of replying to this comment.

I will, but I'll answer you here anyway -- sorry for taking so long to reply.

I strongly disagree that NNTP is a good choice for a backend standard

I feel I should clarify that I don't think it's "good", so much as "less bad than the alternatives".

But we don't need to deal with the problems of distributed systems, because web forums aren't distributed!

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.

Given all of this, the only possible value of using NNTP is the existing software that already implements it.

This is a huge value, though, because most extant web forum, blogging, etc software is terrible for discussions of any nontrivial size.

There's probably an existing standard or three like this somewhere in the dustbin of history.

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.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 April 2016 04:43:34PM 1 point [-]

Any unified system probably needs to at least be capable of supporting that

It also has to have clear advantages over the default of just having a browser with multiple tabs open.

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."

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.

most extant web forum, blogging, etc software is terrible for discussions of any nontrivial size.

That's a rather strong statement which smells of the nirvana fallacy and doesn't seem to be shared by most.

Comment author: DanArmak 28 April 2016 08:16:24PM 0 points [-]

I think this problem is hard.

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.

That's a rather strong statement which smells of the nirvana fallacy and doesn't seem to be shared by most.

FWIW I completely agree with that statement - as long as it says "most" and not "nearly all".