Direct messaging in a social web architecture

March 31, 2010 | 3 comments

This post is the third segment in my series on an architecture for the social web. Previously: How social networks can replace email, which is a non-technical approach to the issues, and my follow-up describing how to build a social web architecture using available technology today.

So what about direct messaging?

In my previous post, I described content notifications in the social web as being Activity Streams updates in response to requests signed with an OAuth key. Each individual contact would have his or her own OAuth key, and the system would adjust delivered content depending on access permissions I had assigned to them.

A private message in this architecture could just be represented as an item of content restricted to a small set of recipients (in the email use case, this is typically just one), with replies delivered using Salmon. The advantage of this approach is that the message doesn’t have to be text; it can be audio, video, a link to live software, or something else entirely.

However, while this is technically feasible, it may not always be desirable. We know from Google Wave, which also pushes the boundaries of person-to-person messaging, that an open definition of what a message contains can get very messy very quickly. Although I was one of the first people to have one, I no longer check my Wave account regularly. I believe this is mostly a user interface issue: Wave is an awesome collaborative document editor (what I’ve heard described as “a massively multiplayer whiteboard”), but not in any way the evolution of email that its development team claimed.

Therefore, I think it’s useful to think about the difference between a document and a message:

  • A message is the body of a communication.
  • A document is a bounded representation of some kind of information.

While in many ways they’re the same, I think it makes sense to make a separation on the UI level. As we’re discussing a decentralized architecture here, some kind of semantic marker in our activity stream feed to mark something as a message would be a useful feature.

Messaging “out of the blue”

You know where you are with an email address. Mine is ben@benwerd.com. Anyone who encounters that string of characters, whether on a website like this one, a business card or a scribbled note on a piece of paper, is able to send me a message from anywhere in the world. In the 17 years I’ve had an email address, the list of friendships and business connections I’ve made, and opportunities I’ve received and developed, through this simple mechanism has been uncountable. It’s also likely to continue far into the future.

Compared to this, visiting someone’s social web profile and sending them a message from their web presence is a hassle. Compare these steps:

  1. Receive the address of someone’s profile
  2. Click the “follow” button either on the profile itself or on the toolbar of your social web compatible browser
  3. Wait for the contact to follow you back
  4. Send your message

To:

  1. Receive someone’s email address
  2. Send a message to that address

It’s simple, ubiquitous, decentralized and universally compatible. In fact, it seems hard to improve on, doesn’t it?

However, as this is a thought experiment about how social networking can replace email, let’s see if we can simplify this process somewhat. In my previous post, I discussed how a connection could be established with OpenID and OAuth through a web-based interface on a social web profile. How can we make this as simple as emailing someone, and cut out most of the steps I’ve listed above?

Connecting programmatically

I propose two additions to my previously discussed mechanism. The first is to expand the connection protocol to include a message. If someone connects to me on LinkedIn or Facebook, I receive some explanatory text from them, so it makes sense to include this feature in our decentralized social web architecture. It is likely that this would be an added parameter to the OAuth request token procedure.

The second is to allow connections to be made programmatically through a custom application. Just as we use email clients now, a social web client could automatically send a connection request. In keeping with our principle of using existing technology where possible, this is a simple OAuth connection request from the application, which includes a user message as described above. The application knows our details because we’ve set our preferences, so we’re never visibly redirected to a web browser to complete authentication. (In fact, this could take place using xAuth, a version of the OAuth protocol being developed for just these sorts of browser-free use cases.)

Whether we can send a follow-up message now depends on the receiving party. We have our OAuth token, and while it remains valid, the receiving social web node may choose to ignore any follow-up requests.

Our procedure has become:

  1. Obtain address of someone’s social web node (you could even infer it using WebFinger)
  2. Send a message to that node, bundled with a connection request

This is significantly better, and is comparable to the simplicity of email.

You may be wondering about the wisdom of adding everyone you contact as a connection. In fact, there’s some precedent for this already in applications like GMail. It’s important to note that not every connection need be a friend: in some ways, you can think of your total list of connections as your contact book. Some are important, some can be safely squirreled away until you need to contact them again. In this context (or any context where people you have a relationship with and people you’ve contacted are merged into one set), an adequate person management interface – or CRM to you and me – becomes important.

Next, and finally: let’s make our distributed social web architecture reliable enough to use in enterprise environments, using message queue protocols like ZeroMQ and AMQP.

Saving the world through game dynamics

March 25, 2010 | Leave a comment

Jane McGonigal’s TED talk starts out a little bit hokey, but rapidly evolves into an important new idea that could genuinely change peoples’ lives.

Jane was the community designer for I Love Bees, the infamous Alternate Reality Game that was released as a promotional endeavor for Halo 2. Her later work recognizes the importance that games play in society, and harnesses our impulse to play in order to create solutions to real-world problems. Her slogan – reality is broken; games designers can fix it – challenges our assumptions of what is worthy, and immediately offers a new line of inquiry. It’s at once a beautiful acknowledgement of the human condition and a practical way to effect real change using technology in an innovative new way.

Want to learn more? She’s put her research online.

Intersection: Publishing

March 18, 2010 | Leave a comment

Intersection: Publishing 2010 is a BarCamp which aims to discuss the future of publishing. There are a bunch of problems with the current models (for example, Amazon’s attempts at digital lock-in), and we want to get people from different backgrounds – publishers, authors, geeks, lawyers, marketers, academics – in a room to try and solve some of them organically and create some new ideas. It will be an informal, creative day.

You should come too.

It’s on April 17th in London, and is completely free. All we’d like you to do is either add your name to the wiki or let us know you’d like to come. (Even if you don’t do either of those things, you can still turn up on the day, but it helps us estimate overall attendance.)

I’m a technologist / lawyer / author / publisher / marketer / academic, but I don’t know anything about electronic publishing!

Doesn’t matter. In fact, so much the better. This is an emerging space, which needs new blood and fresh ideas. Your experience will help – and you’ll meet plenty of new contacts, with the opportunity for future business.

This is a great idea. How can I help?

Intersection: Publishing is already sponsored by the Stirling Centre for Publishing and Communication, but there are still some vacancies for other sponsors. Check out our sponsor page, or get in touch directly at info@intersectionpublishing.com or +44 7773 385 490. We’re also interested in volunteers on the day.

I can’t attend, but these issues interest me.

We’ve started an ongoing blog that will cover related stories and discussion. We’ll be posting there regularly, and are on the lookout for both guests and further contributors. If you think this could be you, get in touch.

The Digital Economy Bill: an open letter

March 17, 2010 | 4 comments

I’m interrupting my scheduled series of posts about social messaging, because this is important. (The final part should appear tomorrow.)

Here in the UK, the Digital Economy Bill looks like it’s set to be rushed through Parliament:

There’s plenty to oppose in the Digital Economy Bill, it gives the government the ability to disconnect millions. Schools, libraries and businesses could see their connection cut if their pupils, readers of customers infringe any copyright. But one group likes it, the music industry. In a leaked memo a few days ago they admitted the only way to get the bill through would be to rush it through without a real parliamentary debate. Let’s stop that happening.

According to the Open Rights Group, there have even been questions about the Bill’s compatibility with the Human Rights Act.

The following is a letter I wrote to my MP, Andrew Smith. If you’re a British resident, I recommend you do the same (Boing Boing has a sample letter, but generally it’s a good idea to avoid form letters if you can).

Dear Andrew Smith,

I’m very worried that the Government is planning to rush the Digital Economy Bill into law without a full Parliamentary debate. Despite claims made by the BPI and others, I believe it will have dire consequences for British businesses, and therefore for the economy as a whole.

In short, the Digital Economy Bill provides the mechanism to arbitarily remove anyone’s freedom to communicate – their Internet connection, and potentially access to their website or servers – without due process. This will immediately put us on an uneven footing with countries such as the United States, who are already well ahead of us in terms of digital business. If Britain is to remain competitive in the digital world, this must not go ahead.

This is not to say that piracy should be allowed. It is undeniably a criminal act. However, for an issue that has become so culturally ingrained that it requires precise tactics to undo, these measures are unsubtle and counterproductive.

At the very least, a proper Parliamentary debate must be had.

As a constituent I am writing to you today to ask you to do all you can to ensure the Government doesn’t just rush the bill through and deny us our democratic right to scrutiny and debate. As a digital professional, I would be delighted to help with any questions you might have.

Kind regards,

Ben Werdmuller
ben@benwerd.com

Want to read the Bill for yourself? Here it is.

Next Page »