Why is OpenID not more popular then, when it is probably a safer and more reliable option? It might take a bit more work (registering with a service provider and then linking to this in the header of the HTML of the user’s webpage), but it isn’t exactly a huge amount of work. I don’t know how difficult it is to implement an OpenID log-in properly; dozens of plug-ins exist for many pieces systems like WordPress (I removed it here due to issues getting the log-in styled properly… not really a technically limitation!).

Why are more and more systems embracing proprietary log-in systems like OAUTH or Facebook Connect, but neglecting to include an OpenID log-in? Many sites, like AOL, are OpenID providers but then fail to accept OpenID themselves. It’s perfectly good having hundreds of providers, but little use if the major sites which provide these identities actually refuse to then accept them!

OpenID should be pursued, whether instead of or in addition to services like Facebook Connect and OAUTH. Better yet would be for Facebook and Twitter to accept and offer OpenIDs, of course!

£25 for a piece of software, even one as important as an operating system, is much more realistic than a £100 pricetag. I think it is unreasonable to ask personal users for anything more than £60 or£70

High price tags force people to piracy, yet for many years companies like Apple and Microsoft continued using them. I suspect Adobe loses a small fortune over its £600 charge for Photoshop, because I imagine that most of their end-users actually acquired the software illegally. Adobe kindly charge students a discounted rate of only £150: how they expect a student to afford that amazes me.

High price tags force people to piracy.

I have no problems pay $10 or $20 for a decent piece of shareware, and I often buy bundles of discounted shareware, but I dislike being expected to pay a fortune for a commercially-developed program which has hundreds of features which I’ll never even need to use.

Microsoft try to offer users packages containing only software they’ll need, but this confuses many.

Only one package should be sold. That package should only include essential programs, with additional programs being sold individually if needed. Not only would this be beneficial to the average company, but would allow companies like Microsoft to accurately judge the popularity of software like OneNote based on the demand for it

Facebook fails to have a network for my urban area. If I want to join a geographic network, I have to join that of an urban area, Newcastle, approximately 40 miles away. A Facebook group with nearly 10,000 members exists that lobbies for my area to be made a network exists, but has it been done? No.

Other websites, like MySpace, fail to keep in touch with their users’ needs too. MySpace suffers from featuritis, having introduced pointless services like ‘MySpace Karaoke’ and allowing customisation to such an extent that makes the site inaccessible and inefficient.

Members need a big say in how social networking are operated.

Simply stating that if a site fails to meet the needs of its users, that they will stop using that site, is not a satisfactory solution. These sites are primarily a community comprising smaller communities (social networks), and if users leave for other sites, these communities are torn apart and social networking becomes even more time-consuming, as users must use several sites.

The solution? Co-operation: ‘an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise’.

If members owned the service they use, they could use their democratic voice to get features they want and to ensure that a positive user experience is maintained.

The securing of initial capital obviously proves a problem. However, if each member had to pay an amount – whether £1, £2 or £10 – for a share (and say in the site’s future), this could raise it. This might work especially well for niche social networks, as people willing to contribute to the site’s initial capital could be quickly identified and targeted. Niche networks have been known to rapidly grow. For example, Facebook was originally for students at Harvard and within one month, over half of that university’s undergraduate population had joined^{(see this article)}.

Paying for the upkeep of the site could be a problem too, but member-owners would be able to choose which revenue model they preferred. If the members were willing to pay to subscribe, they could democratically indicate their desire to do so. If members would rather face advertisements, they could democratically choose to do that. At the moment, if social networking sites were to make this decision, it would be somewhat experimental as they could not truly know what their members desired. Consequently, some sites use intrusive adverts, whilst others charge for membership in situations where it is inappropriate.

Of course, some social networking sites are already semi-democratic. Facebook had a ‘Site Governance Vote’ in April 2009, but this was only about changes to the terms of service (something I suspect most members aren’t faintly interested about). This vote was effectively useless. For it to be binding, it needed a 30% turnout. It achieved roughly 3%. Privacy International described it as a ‘massive confidence trick’. In a way, it was important topic on which to vote, but members should be able to vote on issues important to them, not just topics on which the company wants them to vote.

Social networking sites are communities, not just companies. A community should be democratically-controlled in order to ensure its needs are best met and that it can grow in a sustainable and responsible fashion, rather than a fashion in which the main aim is generating higher profits.

A few years ago, without a computer, I would have been without access to instant messaging or the World Wide Web. Today, I can still access most social networking sites, the Web and still chat to my buddies without one.

Smartphones are, quite simply, amazing.

I can fulfill most of the social aspects of the Internet solely off my phone. I have Twitter, MSN, Google Talk; if I wanted I could even access Facebook, MySpace or protocols as obscure as IRC!

Whilst it isn’t quite as easy to communicate from a smartphone, you can still do a satisfactory job.

Information and socialising is now amazingly portable.

Whilst smartphones won’t replace laptops or desktops, due to it being impractical to do proper research on a small screen or typing a letter on a small keyboard, I do believe the role of traditional computers is only going to diminish.

Somebody asked Merseyside Police about their IT infrastructure. They asked some questions like ‘How many desktop computers do you have?’ but then some more interesting ones like ‘Of those server computers what is the Operating System and Version are they using?’ and ‘Has Open Source comparative been review [sic] for the Operating System?’.

Apparently, it isn’t in the ‘public interest’ to tell us which web browser, office suite, email client or operating system they use. Nor is it in our interest to tell us even if the software they even considered open source solutions. Whilst they noted ‘Accountability of Public Funds’ is important, it’s clearly not that important. Why? Apparently, telling us what operating system or web browser they use would ‘leave Merseyside Police Systems subject to potential attack from hackers.’

Perhaps if Merseyside Police used secure software (or could at least confirm they considered open source solutions), they wouldn’t have to worry about being subject to potential attack!