[OpenID board] Singel-Minded: Facebook Comments Are Another ‘Good News, Bad News’ Proposition

Allen Tom allentomdude at gmail.com
Mon Mar 7 21:10:36 UTC 2011


[Oops, I hit the send button prematurely]

It's great that Facebook once again is helping to prove the model that
internet identities should be portable across sites. In the past, the
main criticisms against OpenID were

   1. Users wouldn't be able to understand the concept of logging into a
   website with an account from a different website - the UX would be too
   confusing
   2. Website owners don't want to outsource authentication to 3rd parties.
   3. Users don't want to reuse an existing account on other websites

The popular social networks are doing a great job disproving these myths,
and proving that there's plenty of value in portable internet identities.

The biggest shortcoming with OpenID is that it only addresses the login
issue. Potential OpenID Relying Parties have often asked me, "OK, the user
can login with an OpenID. Now what?" In contrast, the popular social network
platforms are about bringing the social network's user experience, data, and
services to the website. Logging in is just a side effect of using an
existing web identity.

Regarding the Facebook Comments plugin - websites that allow users to post
comments generally don't have a huge problem with login/registration
friction - rather by far the the biggest problem is idiotic/hateful posts,
followed by spam. Facebook's Real Identity enforces real life social
controls to strongly discourage anti-social and destructive posts, and FB's
strong anti-spam defenses make the Facebook Comments plugin an excellent
turnkey solution for many publishers.

I recommend reading Julie Zhou's (Facebook's UX design manager) very
insightful guest post in the NY Times for more details.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30zhuo.html

That being said, while Facebook is helping to prove the model that web
identities should be portable, I think there's plenty of room for more than
just one universal identity. I do think that disposable aka "directed"
identities are useless, since an disposable/one-off identity with no
existing reputation has no advantages over an old fashioned local account.
In order to match (or perhaps exceed) the value of a Real Identity, portable
web identities will need some sort of reputation that websites can use to
determine the value of a new user, as well as a way to hold users
accountable for their behavior.

Allen

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Allen Tom <allentomdude at gmail.com> wrote:

> [+openid-general]
>
> It's great that Facebook once again is helping to prove the model that
> internet identities should be portable across sites. In the past, the
> main criticisms against OpenID were
>  users wouldn't be able to understand the concept of logging into a website
> with an account from a different website, and that website owners would not
> want to outsource authentication to 3rd parties.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>wrote:
>
>>  http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/03/singel-facebook-empire/
>>
>>
>>
>> Reactions?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20110307/8a30a9c9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the board mailing list