From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8637r75ycs.fsf@cmarib.ramside> References: <8637r75ycs.fsf@cmarib.ramside> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:12:34 +1300 Message-ID: From: Winston Kodogo To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ede02879492052f4d1efe Subject: Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8b772dde-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --001a113ede02879492052f4d1efe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 That's an awfully long troll. Some people have a lot of time on their hands. And it's not yet April Fool's day, even in New Zealand. On 31 March 2016 at 12:40, wrote: > Greetings, 9fans! > > We all know that Plan 9 started as a retrospective "re-take" on UNIX, > occasionally referred to as "UNIX done right". This has led to > differences between "the Plan 9 way" of doing something vs. "the UNIX > way" of doing it, such as those highlighted by the infamous "Unix to > Plan 9 command translation" page on the Plan 9 wiki. More generally, > this can be viewed as the difference between the "right" way to do > something versus the "popular" way to do it. > > So, my question is, what would be the Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook? > Stated differently, if social networking were to be re-imagined and > re-done "right" this time, how would it be done? > > > E-Mail > ====== > > The obvious answer that comes to mind is e-mail. It worked well for > decades. Although 9fans appear to continue this tradition in grand > style, using e-mail for social networking poses a number of problems: > > 1. _Spam. The fact that SMTP doesn't authenticate senders of e-mail > messages has led to a proliferation of spam which has greatly > burdened the medium, requiring complex workarounds that usually put > legitimate mail at risk of misclassification as "junk". > > 2. _`Subject lines`. Few people seem to know how to choose an > appropriate "Subject:" line, anymore. People will use subjects like > "tonight's meeting", without specifying what group is meeting, when > the meeting is, or what it is about. When the topic of a thread > drifts from its original topic, few people remember (or even think) > to update the Subject: line. Often, when one person wants to send a > second person an e-mail, the first person will simply reply to the > last message they received from the second person, even if it was on > a completely different subject. (This, of course, creates false > relationships between the Subject: and References: fields used to > define threads.) > > Despite the fact that most MUAs (including Webmail_) offer the > ability to automatically sort e-mail into different categories, many > people don't know how to sort incoming mail. When they get too much > e-mail in their "Inbox", the become annoyed and confused. > > These problems were addressed, somewhat, by the advent of the Web > forums which were popular in the 2000's. On a Web forum, moderators > could reclassify posts and reorganize threads to better reflect their > content. > > 3. Listservs. For people familiar with mailing lists, sending commands > to list servers is not difficult. Unfortunately, many people don't > understand listservs, and want some way to subscribe to and/or > unsubscribe from mailing lists using a Web page. While some > listservs provide a Web interface in addition to an SMTP interface, > it is becoming more and more common for mailing lists to append > footers containing "unsubscribe" links. This information (which > usually duplicates information found in message headers and should be > obvious to anyone who knows how to use the listserv, anyway) pollutes > the content of the messages. Furthermore, if a message containing > such links is forwarded to someone else, the final recipient could > unsubscribe the forwarding party from the list without his or her > consent. > > 4. _`HTML mail`. Nowadays, people will write things in e-mail messages > like, "I've highlighted the changes in red". On my display, plain > text is rendered in black-on-white! Or they'll write something like > "here's the link," without specifying any URL. You have to dig into > the text/html part to find it. Forwarding an HTML message to other > recipients can also pose security risks, if _hyperlinks in the > message offer access to personal information. HTML mail also makes > e-mail messages five times the size they need to be. > > 5. MIME. It's great to be able to attach small files to e-mail > messages, but there are WAY too many people who will just blindly > attach Word Perfect, Microsuck Word, or ZIP files to their messages. > I've even seen otherwise "well-educated" lawyers do this. > > 6. Large attachments. MIME permits relatively small files to be > attached to messages, but it is not really meant for distribution of > large _files such as large images, audio files, movie files, ISO > images, or tarballs. For people like us, that's not a problem; we > just upload the file to a server and post its location, along with a > brief description of the file. People who do not know how to do this > will typically end up jumping through hoops to upload their file to > some dreaded third-party service like Flickr or YouTub, and then post > a link to that. > > 7. _Quoting. Very few people use Usenet-style quoting, anymore. Often, > people will quote the entire message to which they're replying, and > use vague English phrases (or even in-line "quotes") to indicate to > what points they're replying. When top-posting became the default > quoting style for Outlook, e-mail became all but undecipherable. > Have you ever seen an e-mail containting five "Original Message" > lines? There can only be ONE "original" message! Have you ever > tried to respond to a top-posted message using Usenet style quoting? > Have you ever tried to read a thread using a mixture of different > quoting styles? It's just a CF. > > 8. Paragraphs. There is this thing, called a "paragraph", which people > used to learn about in school. The _paragraph is a great tool for > structuring content, enabling an author to group related information > together, and to separate it from content of a different sort. > Nowadays, many e-mail messages are written on a single line (often > even without word wrapping), without regard for any logical division > or organization. When paragaphs are used, they are often used to > repetitiously reiterate the content of preceeding paragraphs. > > 9. Text messaging. Because text messaging and e-mail are both > accessible from modern phones, people have begun to treat them as if > they were the same medium. They are not! People are now reading > e-mail messages using cultural conventions from the "texting" world, > rather than understood e-mail conventions, and mis-interpreting what > e-mails say. People are also writing e-mail messages as if they were > texts: have you noticed how "A.M." and "P.M." have now almost > universally become "am" and "pm"? > > People are also beginning to expect that their e-mail messages will > be delivered to their recipients in the space of just a few seconds, > like text messages are. Oblivious to the fact that people don't > necessarily even check e-mail every day, they seem to assume that > anything they send is going to be received more or less instantly. > > Text messaging has also conditioned people to expect all their > messages to be short. This conditioning has gotten to the point, > now, that people will consider an e-mail message longer than a single > paragraph_ to be "long"! (Certainly, the present post to 9fans would > be considered epic-length, by that standard!) > > 10. Censorship. Many groups _want some way to censor messages sent to > other members of the group. While mailing lists can be moderated, it > generally requires one or more moderators to _`proactively screen` > and approve each message before it is relayed to other subscribers. > Once a message is delivered, it can't be un-sent. This limitation > was also addressed, to some extent, by Web forums. On a Web forum, > users are often able to _`flag posts` which are spam_ or violate some > specified "_`acceptable usage`" policy, and moderators are able to > edit or remove other users' posts. Because Web forums store posts on > the server, and don't offer means to _`cryptographically sign` posts, > a user's words can be changed without them (or anybody else) even > realizing it. Most Web forums also allow a user to edit or remove > their own posts, complicating historical perspectives on who really > said what. (Think of forum posts quoting other forum posts.) For > some people, the ability to alter or censor published content is a > _feature. For others, it is a _defect. > > 11. IMAP quotas. Many people leave their mail on their mail server and > just access it using IMAP. When their mailbox quota gets consumed, > messages sent to them will bounce, or cannot be filed correctly by > the recipient. I remember seeing a local city councilor who was so > popular that her mailbox filled up, at which point she could no > longer use it to communicate effectively. > > 12. _Webmail. For starters, many people simply don't know the > difference between e-mail and Webmail. When using Webmail, mail is > kept in the possession of a third party. It makes it much more > difficult to employ e-mail encryption, such as OpenPGP. Webmail also > encourages use of `HTML mail`_. Have you ever received an e-mail > message containing just a URL which you are expected to "click", > without any further explanation? By promoting the assumption that > e-mail is always accessed on the World Wide Web, Webmail promotes > this kind of Web-snobbishness. > > 13. E-mail is not stupid-compatible. Participating effectively in a > community using e-mail requires a certain level of education. Each > September, when a new crop of college students first gained access to > e-mail, there would be an observable decline in the quality of > e-mail. Gradually, the situation would improve, as these students > began to learn proper netiquette. When AOL began offering Internet > mail to its subscribers in September of 1993, however, there was a > decline in the quality of e-mail from which the Internet never > recovered. This has been known as "The September that never ended". > With the rising popularity of text messaging and mobile e-mail, this > situation has grown progressively worse. Now, droves of children and > grandmas are getting access to e-mail without any of the requisite > education. This present state of affairs could, in a sense, be > called "The September that never ended, that never ended." > > > Web Forums > ========== > > Many of the problems associated with e-mail were, at least partially, > addressed by the the Web forums which were popular in the 2000's. (The > classic example is the Simple Machines forum software.) > > A. As described under `subject lines`_, above, Web forums allowed > moderators to reclassify posts by subject into organized threads. > > B. Users could `flag posts`_ as spam_ or as violations of `acceptable > usage`_ policies, avoiding the need for moderators to `proactively > screen`_ messages. > > C. Users (and moderators) could edit or delete posts (which could be > considered a feature_ or a defect_, as noted above). > > D. Users could upload or post references to multimedia files_, such as > videos, with their posts. > > E. Forums offered sensible quoting_ mechanisms, as well as the ability > to include hyperlinks_ and to specify font colors, sizes, and styles. > > F. Web forums were also fully stupid-compatible. They offered graphical > editing capabilities, so knowing the syntax of a particular forum's > mark-up language wasn't necessary in order to make a post. > > Forums, however, also had their share of shortcomings: > > a. Web forums were stupid-compatible, but smart-incompatible. > > b. Data was kept centrally, on a server. > > c. Each forum was on a separate Web site, with separate accounts. > > d. Using them required a Web browser with access to the World Wide Web. > > e. Posts could be sensored (a feature_ or a defect_, as noted above). > > f. It was difficult to `cryptographically sign`_ posts. > > g. Forums had no obvious analogue to the RFC 822 Message-id header, > making it difficult to identify individual posts. > > h. The proliferation of different mark-up syntaxes used by various > forums made it difficult to remember which syntax you were supposed > to be using at any given time. > > > Social Networks > =============== > > The technology that's been displacing e-mail and Web forums over the > past decade or so is, obviously, that nebulously nefarious Medusa known > as "social networking". Of course, there's no need to describe how > backwards and awful today's social networks, such as Facebook, are. > There have been several attempts to create "open source" social > networks; the most successful to date has probably been _`Diaspora*` > (http://diasporafoundation.org). Diaspora* solves many of the > aforementioned problems, such as ensuring privacy and control over your > own data. Because it's Free Software, it's also smart-compatible. > However, it still has significant limitations: > > I. Diaspora* cannot easily be used to create "groups". > > II. Content published on it cannot be removed, edited, or censored (if, > indeed, that's something you want_ to be able to do). > > III. It uses a push mechanism for distributing updates, so it cannot be > used in disconnected operation, like a MUA can. > > IV. It is a Ruby/Rails application. > > > The Plan 9 Way > ============== > > So, if social networking were to be re-designed from scratch, all over > again, "the Plan 9 way", how would it be done? > > Obviously, the network would present itself as a file system. :D I > should be able to browse and post content using shell commands at the > command line. Or, I could use the Acme plug-in to automate the process, > just like using Acme Mail. I'd be able to batch-up incoming or outgoing > changes using tar(1) or hg, so I could work disconnected from the 'Net, > too. But... here's the tricky part... > > It would have to be both stupid-compatible and smart-compatible at the > same time. Perhaps there would be an HTTP server which would translate > between the file system interface and some flashy Web interface > reminiscent of Facebook or `Diaspora*`_. Of course, the HTTP server > would offer some sort of click-tracking advertising framework, so that > the HTML view of your social life could be packed with ads by whatever > company you've chosen to host your profile. Maybe that HTTP server > would be written in Limbo, so it could be run on Plan 9, Linux, Mac OS, > or Windoze. Meanwhile, power users could fly right in, under the HTTP > layer, and access the file system using 9P, Acme, or whatever their > perferred tool may be, without having to deal with all the HTML cruft. > A social network has to be stupid-compatible if it's going to be > successful. But it also has to be smart-compatible, i.e., done the > "right" way, if we are to keep from going insane. ;) > > -- > +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | human | > |Any sufficiently high intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity.| > +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > --001a113ede02879492052f4d1efe Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That's an awfully long troll. Some people have a lot o= f time on their hands. And it's not yet April Fool's day, even in N= ew Zealand.

= On 31 March 2016 at 12:40, <cigar562hfsp952fans@icebubble= .org> wrote:
Greetings, 9fa= ns!

We all know that Plan 9 started as a retrospective "re-take" on U= NIX,
occasionally referred to as "UNIX done right".=C2=A0 This has led= to
differences between "the Plan 9 way" of doing something vs. "= ;the UNIX
way" of doing it, such as those highlighted by the infamous "Unix= to
Plan 9 command translation" page on the Plan 9 wiki.=C2=A0 More genera= lly,
this can be viewed as the difference between the "right" way to d= o
something versus the "popular" way to do it.

So, my question is, what would be the Plan 9/"right" way to do Fa= cebook?
Stated differently, if social networking were to be re-imagined and
re-done "right" this time, how would it be done?


E-Mail
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The obvious answer that comes to mind is e-mail.=C2=A0 It worked well for decades.=C2=A0 Although 9fans appear to continue this tradition in grand style, using e-mail for social networking poses a number of problems:

1. _Spam.=C2=A0 The fact that SMTP doesn't authenticate senders of e-ma= il
=C2=A0 =C2=A0messages has led to a proliferation of spam which has greatly<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0burdened the medium, requiring complex workarounds that usuall= y put
=C2=A0 =C2=A0legitimate mail at risk of misclassification as "junk&quo= t;.

2. _`Subject lines`.=C2=A0 Few people seem to know how to choose an
=C2=A0 =C2=A0appropriate "Subject:" line, anymore.=C2=A0 People w= ill use subjects like
=C2=A0 =C2=A0"tonight's meeting", without specifying what gro= up is meeting, when
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the meeting is, or what it is about.=C2=A0 When the topic of a= thread
=C2=A0 =C2=A0drifts from its original topic, few people remember (or even t= hink)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0to update the Subject: line.=C2=A0 Often, when one person want= s to send a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0second person an e-mail, the first person will simply reply to= the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0last message they received from the second person, even if it = was on
=C2=A0 =C2=A0a completely different subject.=C2=A0 (This, of course, create= s false
=C2=A0 =C2=A0relationships between the Subject: and References: fields used= to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0define threads.)

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Despite the fact that most MUAs (including Webmail_) offer the=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0ability to automatically sort e-mail into different categories= , many
=C2=A0 =C2=A0people don't know how to sort incoming mail.=C2=A0 When th= ey get too much
=C2=A0 =C2=A0e-mail in their "Inbox", the become annoyed and conf= used.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0These problems were addressed, somewhat, by the advent of the = Web
=C2=A0 =C2=A0forums which were popular in the 2000's.=C2=A0 On a Web fo= rum, moderators
=C2=A0 =C2=A0could reclassify posts and reorganize threads to better reflec= t their
=C2=A0 =C2=A0content.

3. Listservs.=C2=A0 For people familiar with mailing lists, sending command= s
=C2=A0 =C2=A0to list servers is not difficult.=C2=A0 Unfortunately, many pe= ople don't
=C2=A0 =C2=A0understand listservs, and want some way to subscribe to and/or=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0unsubscribe from mailing lists using a Web page.=C2=A0 While s= ome
=C2=A0 =C2=A0listservs provide a Web interface in addition to an SMTP inter= face,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0it is becoming more and more common for mailing lists to appen= d
=C2=A0 =C2=A0footers containing "unsubscribe" links.=C2=A0 This i= nformation (which
=C2=A0 =C2=A0usually duplicates information found in message headers and sh= ould be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0obvious to anyone who knows how to use the listserv, anyway) p= ollutes
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the content of the messages.=C2=A0 Furthermore, if a message c= ontaining
=C2=A0 =C2=A0such links is forwarded to someone else, the final recipient c= ould
=C2=A0 =C2=A0unsubscribe the forwarding party from the list without his or = her
=C2=A0 =C2=A0consent.

4. _`HTML mail`.=C2=A0 Nowadays, people will write things in e-mail message= s
=C2=A0 =C2=A0like, "I've highlighted the changes in red".=C2= =A0 On my display, plain
=C2=A0 =C2=A0text is rendered in black-on-white!=C2=A0 Or they'll write= something like
=C2=A0 =C2=A0"here's the link," without specifying any URL.= =C2=A0 You have to dig into
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the text/html part to find it.=C2=A0 Forwarding an HTML messag= e to other
=C2=A0 =C2=A0recipients can also pose security risks, if _hyperlinks in the=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0message offer access to personal information.=C2=A0 HTML mail = also makes
=C2=A0 =C2=A0e-mail messages five times the size they need to be.

5. MIME.=C2=A0 It's great to be able to attach small files to e-mail =C2=A0 =C2=A0messages, but there are WAY too many people who will just blin= dly
=C2=A0 =C2=A0attach Word Perfect, Microsuck Word, or ZIP files to their mes= sages.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0I've even seen otherwise "well-educated" lawyers= do this.

6. Large attachments.=C2=A0 MIME permits relatively small files to be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0attached to messages, but it is not really meant for distribut= ion of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0large _files such as large images, audio files, movie files, I= SO
=C2=A0 =C2=A0images, or tarballs.=C2=A0 For people like us, that's not = a problem; we
=C2=A0 =C2=A0just upload the file to a server and post its location, along = with a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0brief description of the file.=C2=A0 People who do not know ho= w to do this
=C2=A0 =C2=A0will typically end up jumping through hoops to upload their fi= le to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0some dreaded third-party service like Flickr or YouTub, and th= en post
=C2=A0 =C2=A0a link to that.

7. _Quoting.=C2=A0 Very few people use Usenet-style quoting, anymore.=C2=A0= Often,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0people will quote the entire message to which they're repl= ying, and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0use vague English phrases (or even in-line "quotes")= to indicate to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0what points they're replying.=C2=A0 When top-posting becam= e the default
=C2=A0 =C2=A0quoting style for Outlook, e-mail became all but undecipherabl= e.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Have you ever seen an e-mail containting five "Original M= essage"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0lines?=C2=A0 There can only be ONE "original" messag= e!=C2=A0 Have you ever
=C2=A0 =C2=A0tried to respond to a top-posted message using Usenet style qu= oting?
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Have you ever tried to read a thread using a mixture of differ= ent
=C2=A0 =C2=A0quoting styles?=C2=A0 It's just a CF.

8. Paragraphs.=C2=A0 There is this thing, called a "paragraph", w= hich people
=C2=A0 =C2=A0used to learn about in school.=C2=A0 The _paragraph is a great= tool for
=C2=A0 =C2=A0structuring content, enabling an author to group related infor= mation
=C2=A0 =C2=A0together, and to separate it from content of a different sort.=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Nowadays, many e-mail messages are written on a single line (o= ften
=C2=A0 =C2=A0even without word wrapping), without regard for any logical di= vision
=C2=A0 =C2=A0or organization.=C2=A0 When paragaphs are used, they are often= used to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0repetitiously reiterate the content of preceeding paragraphs.<= br>
9. Text messaging.=C2=A0 Because text messaging and e-mail are both
=C2=A0 =C2=A0accessible from modern phones, people have begun to treat them= as if
=C2=A0 =C2=A0they were the same medium.=C2=A0 They are not!=C2=A0 People ar= e now reading
=C2=A0 =C2=A0e-mail messages using cultural conventions from the "text= ing" world,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0rather than understood e-mail conventions, and mis-interpretin= g what
=C2=A0 =C2=A0e-mails say.=C2=A0 People are also writing e-mail messages as = if they were
=C2=A0 =C2=A0texts: have you noticed how "A.M." and "P.M.&qu= ot; have now almost
=C2=A0 =C2=A0universally become "am" and "pm"?

=C2=A0 =C2=A0People are also beginning to expect that their e-mail messages= will
=C2=A0 =C2=A0be delivered to their recipients in the space of just a few se= conds,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0like text messages are.=C2=A0 Oblivious to the fact that peopl= e don't
=C2=A0 =C2=A0necessarily even check e-mail every day, they seem to assume t= hat
=C2=A0 =C2=A0anything they send is going to be received more or less instan= tly.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Text messaging has also conditioned people to expect all their=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0messages to be short.=C2=A0 This conditioning has gotten to th= e point,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0now, that people will consider an e-mail message longer than a= single
=C2=A0 =C2=A0paragraph_ to be "long"!=C2=A0 (Certainly, the prese= nt post to 9fans would
=C2=A0 =C2=A0be considered epic-length, by that standard!)

10. Censorship.=C2=A0 Many groups _want some way to censor messages sent to=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0other members of the group.=C2=A0 While mailing lists can be m= oderated, it
=C2=A0 =C2=A0generally requires one or more moderators to _`proactively scr= een`
=C2=A0 =C2=A0and approve each message before it is relayed to other subscri= bers.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Once a message is delivered, it can't be un-sent.=C2=A0 Th= is limitation
=C2=A0 =C2=A0was also addressed, to some extent, by Web forums.=C2=A0 On a = Web forum,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0users are often able to _`flag posts` which are spam_ or viola= te some
=C2=A0 =C2=A0specified "_`acceptable usage`" policy, and moderato= rs are able to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0edit or remove other users' posts.=C2=A0 Because Web forum= s store posts on
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the server, and don't offer means to _`cryptographically s= ign` posts,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0a user's words can be changed without them (or anybody els= e) even
=C2=A0 =C2=A0realizing it.=C2=A0 Most Web forums also allow a user to edit = or remove
=C2=A0 =C2=A0their own posts, complicating historical perspectives on who r= eally
=C2=A0 =C2=A0said what.=C2=A0 (Think of forum posts quoting other forum pos= ts.)=C2=A0 For
=C2=A0 =C2=A0some people, the ability to alter or censor published content = is a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0_feature.=C2=A0 For others, it is a _defect.

11. IMAP quotas.=C2=A0 Many people leave their mail on their mail server an= d
=C2=A0 =C2=A0just access it using IMAP.=C2=A0 When their mailbox quota gets= consumed,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0messages sent to them will bounce, or cannot be filed correctl= y by
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the recipient.=C2=A0 I remember seeing a local city councilor = who was so
=C2=A0 =C2=A0popular that her mailbox filled up, at which point she could n= o
=C2=A0 =C2=A0longer use it to communicate effectively.

12. _Webmail.=C2=A0 For starters, many people simply don't know the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0difference between e-mail and Webmail.=C2=A0 When using Webmai= l, mail is
=C2=A0 =C2=A0kept in the possession of a third party.=C2=A0 It makes it muc= h more
=C2=A0 =C2=A0difficult to employ e-mail encryption, such as OpenPGP.=C2=A0 = Webmail also
=C2=A0 =C2=A0encourages use of `HTML mail`_.=C2=A0 Have you ever received a= n e-mail
=C2=A0 =C2=A0message containing just a URL which you are expected to "= click",
=C2=A0 =C2=A0without any further explanation?=C2=A0 By promoting the assump= tion that
=C2=A0 =C2=A0e-mail is always accessed on the World Wide Web, Webmail promo= tes
=C2=A0 =C2=A0this kind of Web-snobbishness.

13. E-mail is not stupid-compatible.=C2=A0 Participating effectively in a =C2=A0 =C2=A0community using e-mail requires a certain level of education.= =C2=A0 Each
=C2=A0 =C2=A0September, when a new crop of college students first gained ac= cess to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0e-mail, there would be an observable decline in the quality of=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0e-mail.=C2=A0 Gradually, the situation would improve, as these= students
=C2=A0 =C2=A0began to learn proper netiquette.=C2=A0 When AOL began offerin= g Internet
=C2=A0 =C2=A0mail to its subscribers in September of 1993, however, there w= as a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0decline in the quality of e-mail from which the Internet never=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0recovered.=C2=A0 This has been known as "The September th= at never ended".
=C2=A0 =C2=A0With the rising popularity of text messaging and mobile e-mail= , this
=C2=A0 =C2=A0situation has grown progressively worse.=C2=A0 Now, droves of = children and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0grandmas are getting access to e-mail without any of the requi= site
=C2=A0 =C2=A0education.=C2=A0 This present state of affairs could, in a sen= se, be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0called "The September that never ended, that never ended.= "


Web Forums
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Many of the problems associated with e-mail were, at least partially,
addressed by the the Web forums which were popular in the 2000's.=C2=A0= (The
classic example is the Simple Machines forum software.)

A. As described under `subject lines`_, above, Web forums allowed
=C2=A0 =C2=A0moderators to reclassify posts by subject into organized threa= ds.

B. Users could `flag posts`_ as spam_ or as violations of `acceptable
=C2=A0 =C2=A0usage`_ policies, avoiding the need for moderators to `proacti= vely
=C2=A0 =C2=A0screen`_ messages.

C. Users (and moderators) could edit or delete posts (which could be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0considered a feature_ or a defect_, as noted above).

D. Users could upload or post references to multimedia files_, such as
=C2=A0 =C2=A0videos, with their posts.

E. Forums offered sensible quoting_ mechanisms, as well as the ability
=C2=A0 =C2=A0to include hyperlinks_ and to specify font colors, sizes, and = styles.

F. Web forums were also fully stupid-compatible.=C2=A0 They offered graphic= al
=C2=A0 =C2=A0editing capabilities, so knowing the syntax of a particular fo= rum's
=C2=A0 =C2=A0mark-up language wasn't necessary in order to make a post.=

Forums, however, also had their share of shortcomings:

a. Web forums were stupid-compatible, but smart-incompatible.

b. Data was kept centrally, on a server.

c. Each forum was on a separate Web site, with separate accounts.

d. Using them required a Web browser with access to the World Wide Web.

e. Posts could be sensored (a feature_ or a defect_, as noted above).

f. It was difficult to `cryptographically sign`_ posts.

g. Forums had no obvious analogue to the RFC 822 Message-id header,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0making it difficult to identify individual posts.

h. The proliferation of different mark-up syntaxes used by various
=C2=A0 =C2=A0forums made it difficult to remember which syntax you were sup= posed
=C2=A0 =C2=A0to be using at any given time.


Social Networks
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The technology that's been displacing e-mail and Web forums over the past decade or so is, obviously, that nebulously nefarious Medusa known
as "social networking".=C2=A0 Of course, there's no need to d= escribe how
backwards and awful today's social networks, such as Facebook, are.
There have been several attempts to create "open source" social networks; the most successful to date has probably been _`Diaspora*`
(http://diasporafoundation.org).=C2=A0 Diaspora* solves many of the=
aforementioned problems, such as ensuring privacy and control over your
own data.=C2=A0 Because it's Free Software, it's also smart-compati= ble.
However, it still has significant limitations:

I.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Diaspora* cannot easily be used to create "groups"= .

II.=C2=A0 Content published on it cannot be removed, edited, or censored (i= f,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0indeed, that's something you want_ to be able to do= ).

III. It uses a push mechanism for distributing updates, so it cannot be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0used in disconnected operation, like a MUA can.

IV.=C2=A0 It is a Ruby/Rails application.


The Plan 9 Way
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

So, if social networking were to be re-designed from scratch, all over
again, "the Plan 9 way", how would it be done?

Obviously, the network would present itself as a file system.=C2=A0 :D=C2= =A0 I
should be able to browse and post content using shell commands at the
command line.=C2=A0 Or, I could use the Acme plug-in to automate the proces= s,
just like using Acme Mail.=C2=A0 I'd be able to batch-up incoming or ou= tgoing
changes using tar(1) or hg, so I could work disconnected from the 'Net,=
too.=C2=A0 But... here's the tricky part...

It would have to be both stupid-compatible and smart-compatible at the
same time.=C2=A0 Perhaps there would be an HTTP server which would translat= e
between the file system interface and some flashy Web interface
reminiscent of Facebook or `Diaspora*`_.=C2=A0 Of course, the HTTP server would offer some sort of click-tracking advertising framework, so that
the HTML view of your social life could be packed with ads by whatever
company you've chosen to host your profile.=C2=A0 Maybe that HTTP serve= r
would be written in Limbo, so it could be run on Plan 9, Linux, Mac OS,
or Windoze.=C2=A0 Meanwhile, power users could fly right in, under the HTTP=
layer, and access the file system using 9P, Acme, or whatever their
perferred tool may be, without having to deal with all the HTML cruft.
A social network has to be stupid-compatible if it's going to be
successful.=C2=A0 But it also has to be smart-compatible, i.e., done the "right" way, if we are to keep from going insane.=C2=A0 ;)

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ |=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0human <cigar562hfsp952fans@icebubble.org>=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
|Any sufficiently high intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity.| +----------------------------------------------------------------------+

--001a113ede02879492052f4d1efe--