The Progressive (Profitable) Web

April 2, 2013 | 2 comments

Ryan Holiday laments the loss of Google Reader and RSS in general in Our Regressive Web, arguing that if someone came up with them today, we’d think they were brilliant ideas:

Nothing better has risen up to replace them. The underlying needs of a fairly large user base (that these services meet) still exist.

We’re just regressing.

[...] RSS is impervious to blogging’s worst, but most profitable traits. [...] No wonder nobody ever pushed for widespread adoption. Of course it died a slow death—along with Google Alerts and Delicious. Their mission is antithetical to the ethos of our new media age. Where noise, chatter and pushing—not pulling—rule the day.

Our Regressive Web by Ryan Holiday, on Medium

He’s right. Aggregated content – content on the reader’s terms – has a huge potential userbase, but it wasn’t profitable for either the bloggers or the aggregators, so it languished. Sure, you could tack some Google Ads onto the end of each post in a feed, but control over the form that the content is presented in is granted fully to the user. Where’s the opportunity to upsell? Where are the branding opportunities or the baked-in communities, carefully designed to maximize ongoing engagement?

The irony is that blogs have actually downgraded their on-page advertising over time. If you visit TechCrunch today, you’ll only see two ads above the fold. Check out io9, and you’ll see none at all. The redesigned ReadWrite has a few more: a giant banner above the fold, and then four small squares with another ad in the stream of content itself.

Wouldn’t it be nice if you could have your cake and eat it, too? Allow the user to consume content on his or her terms, while also allowing the content producer to make money?

Here’s an idea I’ve been working on in my own time. It’s a little technical, but bear with me:

  1. Add a simple social layer to the web. I still like the idea of the HTTP header I described in httpID. Your site may connect to my site with a mechanism like OpenID Connect and get an authentication token automatically. Think of it like a one-way friend request. Of course, I can then reciprocate by connecting to your site to create a two-way relationship.
  2. Add authentication to feeds. Each feed has just one URL. An aggregator may sign the request for a feed with an OAuth-like signature. (We’re sidestepping HTTP digest auth for obvious reasons.) The software producing the feed may choose to acknowledge the signature, or not; by default, you get all the public posts you’d normally get when accessing a feed.
  3. Manage connections and restrict access to content. I see everyone who’s connected to me from a control panel, and can reciprocate from there. More importantly, I can add any of my connections to access groups. So if I add you to a group and publish a piece of content so that it is only accessible by that group, when your site requests my feed using a signed request, you’ll see that content.
  4. Optionally: sell access to premium content. Once you can selectively broadcast content to a finite group of people, you can sell access to that group. (And of course, you can have more than one paid-access group.) For example, I’m a subscriber to NSFW, a paid publication with an online presence. They could push all their articles to me as a subscriber, while making a handful of taster articles available to everyone. You could even include a pointer to a subscription URL within that social handshake from part 1. If you decentralize the financial transactions (and why not?), you could even give a small cut to the platform owner.

All of the above is complementary to feed standards like RSS and Activity Streams, as well as to federated social web protocols and methodologies like OStatus. It’s super simple to both use and implement – but could add a layer of commerce to the content web, while also decreasing our dependence on large content silos whose interests are not in line with their customers.

Making billions of dollars from the federated social web

August 28, 2012 | 4 comments

Diaspora was pretty exciting. A Kickstarter campaign that promised it all: a platform created “for everyone to have full control over their data and to empower people in to become responsible, secure, and social Internet dwellers”. They raised over $200,000, which at the time was the largest Kickstarter funding round ever. Neat!

Yesterday, Diaspora announced that they were becoming a community project. That means that the wider open source community will be responsible for its direction; the original team will be involved to some extent, but are now involved in projects like, which just made its way through Y Combinator. ( is released under the same open source license as Diaspora: here’s the GitHub repository.)

The federated social web is a holy grail for many of us. It’s a simple idea: rather than ceding control of our data and activities to a monolithic, monopolistic third party, why don’t we create an open market for services we can use, which can all interoperate? Those of us willing to set up our own servers would own our own data; others would use the servers set up by their schools or employers; others still would join the hosted service of their choice. The result would be a more innovative, web-like application web, where niche interests could be better served and people could choose the applications and interfaces that best suited them.

It goes far beyond Facebook-style social sites: the potential is for deep interoperability between every application on the web and beyond – and, potentially, identity spaces where we could keep our personal information safe.

Back in 2005, I tried to make the case in a letter to the social web hating journalist Andrew Orlowski:

If a thousand sites depend on Flickr, what happens if Flickr goes down? Wouldn’t it make a great deal more sense to think about standards for data transfer and availability to allow for Flickr-like data all over the Internet, rather than in one place – effectively a peer-to-peer network (or networks) of tagged resources? That way one can still grab information and manipulate it, but with zero dependence and a high tolerance for network failure. Rather than there being one nebulous Microsoft Office 12 For Web, there could be ten thousand office applications that all use the same standards and allow for data transfer perhaps with storage services elsewhere. The answer to “how bad do you think it will get” is “exactly the same as now” if we allow one service provider to create a monopoly for a particular type of service. As ever, the solution is open standards with a framework that anyone can use. This is obviously not going to lead to billions of dollars for any one provider, so it’s probably up to the open source movement to create.

Returning to that letter seven years later, I think I was wrong about one thing: I believe it is possible to make billions of dollars from interoperable social web applications – and there’s no need for mass public adoption of apps using federated social web standards to do it.

I’m convinced that business software should be using federation protocols, as long as those protocols have built-in access permissions. Imagine if your organization – a government department, say, or a corporation – could selectively create shared spaces for joint projects with other organizations, for as long as the project existed. Imagine if you could collaborate in more fluid ways, where applications were more like documents that you could introduce into a project when you needed them. Imagine if email was smarter. Whereas decentralization in public consumer apps is an ideological feature, in enterprise apps it has a solid business case and adds measurable value. Businesses will become more profitable by using federated apps.

On hearing the news about Diaspora, StatusNet’s Evan Prodromou made a very sensible plea:

I only have one favour left to ask: please, for the rest of us who are still working full-steam on federated social networks, don’t fall into the comforting fiction that the problem is insurmountable. It’s not; it deserves our attention and support. You didn’t waste the last two years on something pointless and unattainable. Your work matters.

It might sound like hyperbole, but I still believe it could change the way we do business, and ultimately how we all communicate.

Update: In the comments, Johannes Ernst points to his post about why decentralized software is 10x harder. I think he’s right about the problems that need to be overcome. But check out his note at the bottom: watch this space.