I'd love it if this sort of thing worked. I see a few problems:
1) All the people are on facebook. Only a % use firefox (as opposed to chrome, and all the others,) so this doesn't actually mirror your existing friend network, let alone solve the problem of making it easier (which is the only way people will actually switch.)
2) Facebook and google chat already have a list of your friends/contacts right there to hand. Firefox would need to gather this data somehow, which would either be intrusive (think LinkedIn "import your gmail contacts") or annoying (I am not going to mess around exporting things manually, and neither will the real humans).
3) Existing network implementations. As per Adam Lerymenko's "Redecentralize" talk[1], all the existing services are based on centralised network architectures. Unless Mozilla build their own central network of contacts etc, we'll be stuck using the existing monolithic sites that don't respect privacy as backends. Which (as per the Talkilla example) isn't the point. If Zero tier one et al are successful one day, then maybe we'll all be own our own separate VPNs with our friends (although that doesn't mirror the global social graph either.)
Regarding 3) Mozilla already runs free sync servers, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to allow syncing of contacts (In fact, extending Mozilla sync api/service to support Thunderbird might be a good idea...?).
Other alternatives are syncing contacts via IMAP or LDAP -- although I'm not entirely sold on either of those...
As for "liberating" your contacts from Facebook/Google/Etc -- your browser might actually have an advantage -- everyone that uses these sites, already trusts their browser with the login information. That's not much of a stretch to implement some wrappers around the various apis to get a "local" (in browser profile) copy of the list(s).
Firefox (or Iceweasel) already manages many of my passwords, I'd have no problem syncing my contacts with Firefox too (although I currently don't see much of a need for it. Might make a good addon either way -- makes using disconnected webmail services even easier if Firefox has my address list...).
re: saving passwords in a browser: oh yeah, people still do that. I haven't for years. I leave a few auth cookies around, true, but not for sensitive sites.
Why not? Anything particularly bad with how Mozilla encrypts and stores passwords (when a suitable pass-phrase is chosen)?
Unless you're using some form of one-time token, a compromised browser process could still expose your passwords (not to mention that it of course have access to whatever data you protect with that password (emails, documents etc)).
Does firefox actually encrypt them and require a master password to open them up? Times have clearly moved on... Back in the day, it (or whichever browser I was using in 2009) used to just autofill the passwords for the site, I assumed they were just encoded somewhere, not encrypted.
I use a mixture of things I've been meaning to consolidate for a while... all of which are a big list of unique (obviously) passwords stored somewhere encrypted by a long password.
Regarding 1) and 2), that's why the author suggests XMPP. It would mean you can aggregate Google and Facebook chat in the browser, have your existing contacts lists, etc.
Of course, users of Facebook chat can't add arbitrary XMPP contacts to their friends list, but that's a different problem.
That's a very conflicting message. You don't want "bloated code", but you use Firefox for its extensions. You think browsers should focus on 4 things, but one of the main factors keeping you away from Chrome is not in that list.
I do wonder, in the early days of Chrome, how many people downloaded Firefox, did their first search with the default search engine, then downloaded Chrome.
People are forgetting Firefox's roots. Mozilla's original browser included an XMPP IM client, IRC client, email client, and (oh yeah) browser. It was a slow bloated mess. The whole point of Firefox was to be a lean single-purpose app and let add-ons fill other needs on a case-by-case basis. People like the author of this article are basically asking Firefox to coalesce back into what it was split off from in the first place.
Do you believe the old mozilla suite had more code than FF does today?
Complexity isn't easy, but it's not that black and white. Just because the first time round it didn't work out so well doesn't mean it won't this time; especially since the circumstances are so very different.
In any case, things like personas are supported, but most of the complexity isn't in the browser; new functionality doesn't need to be tightly coupled to the browser - just exposed.
I actually think the problem isn't so much on the software side, it's organizational: trying to do too many things at once means making sacrifices.
As the author I have to disagree. All I'm asking is that they make the Free/Open Atom and RSS feeds work at least as good as the streams in Facebook does, and that they implement chat.
First one: That only needs to switch the Feed button to a "Like" button that subscribes you to the feed in one click. Then it needs to change the "new tab" page from a speed dial to a stream of those feeds. This stream could be hosted in the cloud (probably it should, to be available anywhere), and so would not add any bloat.
The chat I understand can be seen as bloat. But still, it's just one function, not those hoards of functions that the original Mozilla suite had.
And the point here is that it's really important to make people less dependent on Facebook, to pave the way for other initiatives and efforts to create another chip in the Facebook wall, and then some others another chip, etc. until the wall finally comes crashing down. IMO that's so important that one extra function, adding a little bloat, is well worth it.
If you want to weaken Facebook, here's an idea. Get a dot-com and put it on a business card with your email address and/or phone number. When you meet people, give them that card. That's what I do. I keep them in my wallet. So much easier (less awkward) than exchanging phone numbers. I'm not even that extroverted and I'm surprised how many cards I give out. I always get a positive reaction to the card and never once had someone look at the card and say anything about Facebook. It's also revealing to see how different people react to the card. If more people did this, I think it would cut Facebook out of more social interactions.
Yes, that's a good thing. But it's only one tiny piece of the puzzle. It's like saying "if you want to tackle climate change don't try to lobby the government for stricter regulations or for a price on carbon, just recycle your trash". This is such a huge problem that we need both tiny, personal initiatives, and systemic change. We can put all our eggs in either one.
Not only are there plenty of applications that already do this, you could also develop a firefox plugin for it. Why on Earth would you want it in the browser core?
Well, as I say in the blog post: «I’m sure there are some extensions out there doing all this already. But that’s just not good enough. It needs to be built into the browser to make it easy and visible enough.»
What do I mean not visible enough? For people to use it, they need to know about it. Most people don't even know they can use extensions (or even what a browser is), but they do know that Facebook has a chat function, because it's right there.
Remember, this is not about making life easier for geeks like us. It's about making it just as seamless to use Open web technologies/social networks for normal people as it is to use closed/private systems like Facebook.
Most people don't even know they can use extensions (or even what a browser is), but they do know that Facebook has a chat function, because it's right there.
This seems to suggest a web app or suite of web apps that "competes" with Fb, in some sense. You don't have to install (or even know the URL of) a web app! Mozilla may get there eventually, but they're not going to travel the obvious, NSA-(or plug in your favorite bad actor-)vulnerable way. I think their current work with identity on Persona could grow into that, but they're going to keep it distributed, which I appreciate.
EDIT: Now that I've RTFA, I find that you also are thinking along these lines. However, I think you've glossed over who is actually running the server. In order for Persona to function, in order for all my data to be synced across all my devices, in order for any of my friends to see any of my comments, someone has to pay an electric bill every month. If there is a vast marketplace of server-operators, they can compete on price, {NSA, advertising}-resistance, etc.
I could see Mozilla carrying the web to that paradise of individual autonomy, but I could also see Fb and Fb-alikes derailing the effort along the way. They embraced-and-extended the web once already; I can imagine them doing it again: "Sure I can chat with my friends and "like" my favorite brands through Firefox, but did you see that Facebook allows me to frobnicate my Facebook snorrzlers as well?"
I think the key thing isn't so much "built-in to Firefox" as "supported and promoted by Mozilla." Some kind of federated chat web app would be cool and, if you could use WebRTC to make the main functions of it peer-to-peer, might not require a huge amount of server infrastructure. If Mozilla could afford to offer that infrastructure to Firefox users for free, it would help with adoption.
Maybe you should re-read the article which explains with words and diagrams what "easy and visible enough" means.
The point of adding it to core is also argued in the article, which proposes an alternative to the monopoly Facebook and Google are currently obtaining.
I like both ideas, a lot. I'm a heavy FF user (usually > 100 tabs open, heavily customized, running Aurora) but never used these live updates. I didn't even know that they exist.
A decent (stable, open) xmpp client somewhere in my FF session would be much appreciated, given that GTalk's going away/moving to Hangouts and I'm migrating to my self-hosted XMPP server.
It gives you a huge network/user base who would never install a stand-alone client, but who let Facebook lock them in to their chat system because it's dead simple.
Remember, this is not about making life easier for geeks like us, people who actually know what XMPP is. It's about making it just as seamless to use Open web technologies/social networks for normal people as it is to use closed/private systems like Facebook.
Mozilla got bloated because the creators wanted users to live their entire computing lives inside a single application. The reasons for wanting that are always the same: it gives the creator the most power.
Of course this time around there is a slight difference; rather than adding a chat client to the browser they will prefer to keep adding features to the browser until somebody can write a chat client inside it. Either way the original criticism still stands, which is that doing everything in a single application means duplicating a lot of the work of the host OS, but generally not as well (from window management to scheduling threads to reclaiming memory to supporting hardware features like parallel computation to managing files).
The current plan at Mozilla seems to be for Firefox to be an OS that people use for everything, not just one of many applications that people use. This would give them a great deal of power. The power to kill services or applications that they don't like (e.g. Facebook), the power to prevent application developers supporting hardware they don't like (e.g kinect) and so on. More so than the traditional desktop OSs which have been open in allowing anybody to write software that talks directly to the hardware: browsers are sandboxes that prevent hardware access.
Note: none of this means I like Facebook. I refuse to use it. However I don't think Mozilla should be killing things on their platform just because they don't like them, especially when they are trying to set themselves up as an OS provider.
Firefox is (among other things) better than the rest of the browsers, because I can customize it.
I (having started this subthread) didn't suggest to start creating a Nescape Navigator kind of suite here. I'd just love to have a decent xmpp client as optional extension. Granted, this doesn't have to come from Mozilla.
The browser already is a chat client for millions of people. It's called Facebook. So since the browser already is the only chat client tons of people use, why not make it a client for a Free/Open chat system instead of Facebooks chat system, that they control, censor, give access to to NSA, etc.
The big advantage would be in rendering embedded content using the browser engine. If someone drops a link to a youtube video into chat I should be able to play it inline without needing to use third party services like google+ or facebook that make simple consumption an act of sharing. IM should be treated as a first class citizen, and the browser is more user friendly than the OS (for desktop), and more private than the cloud.
1) I don't use Thunderbird right now, for anything. Mails are either in FF (webmail) or in other applications. I'm not sure if I want to drop webmail in favor of Thunderbird.
2) The status of Thunderbird is still a mystery to me. I'm still not sure if Mozilla is slowly backing off or if they're just not praising TB anymore.
There's a weird parallel to having browsers implement applications and having governments handle business needs. There's only one upstream, and it can destroy the downstream whether it works or not. You gotta be really selective about what you implement there.
It's more important that FF enable downstream to make applications which can then compete with Facebook and break the silos model, which I think is happening with WebRTC.
It's not that easy to avoid Facebook. Many sites are switching to FB social plugin for talkbacks. I've stopped posting comments and questions on many news sites after they started requiring a Facebook identity. Or else I open an incognito window, use my alternative Facebook identity created just for talkbacks, but for some reason my comments don't appear in the stream.
I wish there were a better alternative (could this be an opportunity?).
There was a trending headline last week (didn't bother to read it) FB reported teen traffic is down.
Maybe it's just me but when I go out various places in Austin I don't hear people talking about Facebook anymore. And I see fewer "Like us on Facebook" signs on trucks and business storefronts.
Chris from the Identity team at Mozilla posted this in a separate discussion, but it's a point that shouldn't be missed:
"Mozilla Persona is Free and Open Source all the way down, which is great, but not quite good enough. You need to be able to choose your own provider and switch from one (say Mozilla) to another (say Google or your own server) whenever you want. So Mozilla Persona should just be one of many options for your online account."
The author has a common misunderstanding of what Persona is and what it does. Persona is not an account system and it is not "provided" by Mozilla. It is a federated identity protocol that allows you to use your existing identity (e.g., at Google or Yahoo or Facebook) to authenticate to relying parties. The "account" is held by the Identity Provider (assuming the IdP speaks Persona), and the IdP may also speak other federated identity protocols, e.g., OpenID Connect.
Related confusion is in the below statement:
"Why not have your Persona account also handle your subscription list and logs?"
There is no Persona account, unless the author means the user's account at her Identity Provider.
He makes a good point about all of those issues. It is already all kind of there in Firefox in one form or another.
Especially about the RSS feed feature, everyone cried a river when Google stupidly got rid of it's reader; here ya go, manage your feeds in the browser. Bam, done! It was right there in front of us all along.
Side note; interestingly enough HN does not have an RSS feed. Just saying.
HN does have an RSS feed, there's a link (https://news.ycombinator.com/rss) in the footer. It's not identified in a link as an alternate so auto-discovery may be difficult.
I have previously thought about a similar idea, where we have a standard for a social media stream. People can pick lots of different social media hosting companies. You tap in your social media updates and your hosting company hosts that stream.
You tell your friends your social media URL and they add it to their social media client. If your browser had a client, then it would be responsible for merging all of those feeds into one news feed (just like Facebook's). The important thing here is that everything can be decentralized. It is a bit like merged RSS feeds.
Of course a majority of people would hand that responsibility over to a social media hosting company (such as Facebook), but if you really wanted to, you could write your own client, or hook it directly into your website.
That sounds exactly like the idea behind federated social networks. I've blogged about that in my post 'Think like the internet – Or how to fight Facebook, and win" http://blogg.forteller.net/2011/think-internet/
didn't flock try to do this and fail? they did go a bit over the top with the social integrations though.
I personally prefer having my chat and browser separate although I do agree with the need for RSS to be simplified/made more understandable for the level of the average facebook user.
Yes, you're right. They tried to integrate social networks in the browser. But as you say: They went over the top. I'm just suggesting making feeds easier/better and integrating a chat function not dependent on Facebook or any other of the big, closed players.
The other important reason why Flock failed was that they where new. Firefox already has a huge user base who would just get these new functions trough a normal update.
It's about visibility: People can't use what they don't know exists. Most people didn't know Flock existed.
I hope they run with the idea of a single dedicated share button (like iOS): you can add the services you use, rather than those that a publisher chose to embed, and with more work it'd be nice for starting to back away from endless third-party tracking because you wouldn't need to execute FB/Twitter/etc. JavaScript on every page in the hopes that someone will use it.
Just ship diaspora by default. If I had any time to donate to OSS development, I'd be there. And I think lots of other devs who want to make a difference to the world through OSS should consider it.
Facebook's functions - photos with comments, user profile pages, persistent content - are more similar to web forums - database driven HTTP sites - than to an XMPP chat system.
Absolutely. That's why I say we need many more things to take down Facebook. This is just about starting, making it a little bit easier for people to not spend close to 100% of their online lives in the walled garden of Facebook, by giving them an easy option for two of their functions. It's not about replacing Facebook completely, it's just a start.
They've been feature bloated for a while now, and are still growing all the time. Before Google gave the order to kill IE6 and the world switched from optional to mandatory JS, one could've easily used something like links, w3m, lynx, or a small 3kloc browser hacked in a weekend (been there, done that). Things more or less just worked, and looked the way you wanted things to look.
Now? How many lines of code do you have in Gecko or Webkit, and a reasonable browser built around them? And all the things they depend on? Let's not forget you also need support for one of the most complex programming languages. Browsers really are HUGE.
It would be nice if they could secure communications end-to-end going through Facebook chat or Google Talk, too, but I'm not sure that's possible anymore, with both of them using pretty proprietary protocols or API's now.
From the Business point of view, it should embrace facebook - if user experience turns out bad, they will shift to chrome..which firefox would not want for itself
Did you read the article? It's about weakening, not replacing.
As I say:
«Facebook is taking over the web and we need to save it. The issue is too complex to have one solution. The most obvious solution is federated social networks, but it’s also a very long term solution. We need more, sooner. One of these thousand small solutions should be to take back chat and subscriptions, by making them dead simple to use for everyone straight from the browser.»
While commonly used, chat is just one feature there. There are many popular and closed chat services like Whatsapp for example which aren't connected to social networks. So I don't see why you focus on this problem in the context of Facebook. The problem is a problem in itself. I.e. "how to break the walls of walled garden instant messaging networks".
Am I the only one around here // who thinks Facebook works just fine!?
Also, if you want to compete with Facebook. Find a way to make a social network company grow to 100s of employees without advertisements. That's really all it would take.
Since you mentioned the horror that is XMPP, I am glad to know that this idea and any project will fail and end up on the trashcan of internet history just like all other "federation"/XMPP technologies, such as... oh wait we dont actually have or use XMPP for anything it was meant to be.
Thats right, its only facebook and google internally that take advantage of XMPP while keeping the rest out. Thats what federation does and this idea is no better than jabber which we thought was a good idea 11 years ago.
This is a bad idea because a web browser should not become a chat or client as well.
You know what is a good solution to the "facebook is taking over the web" Remove their like-buttons from your pages! It is all of the web devleopers of the world who chose to add facebook scripts to their webpage that are the problem. Thats what needs to be solved. Facebook wouldnt be nearly what it is if it wasnt for all those webdevs that thought it was good idea to run fb scripts and snitch out their and the webs user.
This battle can be moved to the browser if need be, just run ghostry and better privacy by default, block all accessess to facebook domains form any other domains, and thats it.
> This is a bad idea because a web browser should not become a chat or client as well.
Well, the browser already is a chat client for millions of people. It's called Facebook. So since the browser already is the only chat client tons of people use, why not make it a client for a Free/Open chat system instead of Facebooks chat system, that they control, censor, give access to to NSA, etc.
> Remove their like-buttons from your pages!
I agree we should do this. But that won't help people keep in contact with their friends. And so it won't change the thing I'm focusing on here.
> Well, the browser already is a chat client for millions of people.
I'd rephrase it. Browser is turned into a virtual operating system for millions of people already. While it can be useful, I don't really like when that trend is pushed to the extreme and everyone rushes to run everything through the browser even without clear benefits. The point of that? I always prefer standalone chat clients (as well as e-mail clients and etc.). If some chat service can't interoperate with standalone clients, it's garbage.
Facebook can by the way, since they do use XMPP. Their problem is unwillingness to support federation. They are too selfish. So I never use their service (nor do I use their social network anyway).
You have to remember that just by being a person who read Hacker News you are not a regular person. I really don't mean to be harsh, but it doesn't much matter what you prefer or that you find this trend of running things in the browser problematic. What matters is what normal people do. People who don't even know what a "client" in computer lingo means.
Those are the majority, and if we want them to use Free and Open systems (which is my whole point here), then we have to create those systems in a way normal people will start switching from the closed systems and over to the open ones. And that is only going to happen if the open systems are easier to use and more accessible than the closed ones.
I am aware of the fact that Facebook uses XMPP (I mention it in the post). Still, extremely few people use it through a client. They use it through fb.com.
> Those are the majority, and if we want them to use Free and Open systems (which is my whole point here), then we have to create those systems in a way normal people will start switching from the closed systems
It's trickier than that. There are many open and federated XMPP services around, including those with web clients / interfaces available. Options are around. It's the sabotage of federation by "big" players which is a problem (or sabotage of interoperable protocols altogether).
If your goal is to have a free and open uncontrolled, uncensored chat-system that is NSA kinda proof then lets do that, Im all for it.
I just dont think XMPP fulfills the uncontrolled and uncensored and surveillence resistent parts. We need to look at web of trust, bitmessage and such instead, those are more fun problems than "to spite facebook".
But sure, any solution will benefit greatly if its bundled with the browser since that appears to be the only program most users actually use on their computing devices. Imagine if Tor and a tor-relay or even tor-exit-node came preconfigured with every Firefox and turned on by default. That would be fun.
You might very well be right. Using XMPP is not important to me. The important thing is the goal of moving as many people as possible over from closed to Free/Open systems.
XMPP/Jabber itself is not a bad idea at all. As well as federation. Companies who sabotage XMPP federation by not adopting it (M$, Yahoo, AOL etc), or backing off from it (Google) or proliferating new incompatible junk (Whatsapp and other monstrosities) are a bad thing.
That's ridiculous. Someone comes up with a spec, and if a company doesn't redo their systems to implement it and connect to others with it, they are sabotaging it?
They are sabotaging the only interoperable open and free protocol (which is an Internet standard developed through IETF). Did they propose anything better? Not even close. Even Google which boasts that their Hangouts are superior and thus can't use XMPP didn't open their protocol. So who cares if it's better then? E-mail is way far from perfect, yet it's open and interoperable. So everyone supports it. XMPP is the only developed analog for instant messaging. And all those selfish jerks of companies can't agree to support it. Or develop anything better if they don't like it.
You're not even speaking coherently. They aren't sabotaging it by not adopting it. That's just called... not adopting some arbitrary spec.
Being published by the IETF doesn't mean anything. The IETF has a spec for SIMPLE, too. Should we blame all XMPP networks for sabotaging that "standard"?
Why should a third party have to do something just because you don't like how they run their own networks?
Caveat: email as we know it developed in frontier times when things could grow organically and/or by general consensus rather than being driven by commercial needs.
The frontier days for this sort of communication are over for the most part. Anything that shows signs of being significant will get jumped upon by commercial entities who will try to direct it in a manner that helps their larger goals (and if we are more cynical, expressly in a manner inconvenient to their competitor's goals) potentially (in fact most likely) at the expense of the overall scheme (despite publicly doing it to "help the users/community/public".
Anything new now has forces acting to shape it (for better or, often, for worse) that email never had to contend with until it was so widespread no one entity or collection of entities could wreck it for everyone (despite the best efforts of some such entities!).
well, the new frontier is "dark mail" or more generally "dark net" where interoperability again is the key [as the only way to grow. It is like natural evolution - any non-interoperability efforts will just not grow, and only an interoperability based effort will produce the critical mass]. It is organically decentralized and by its nature a user is the owner of its data even though actual [meaningless to 3rd party] bits may be stored by one or spread around multiple distributed providers ("dark money" style as if you BT wallet is encrypted and replicated though the BT network itself). Content mining and "user is the product", and thus FB and Google as we know it, would be for some time problematic at best and it will be some time before segmentation era of the new net dawns and new Serge/Larry/Zuckenberg appear :)
But it isn't an empty frontier that the thinkers/developers are entering alone. The existing problems both commercial and legal (and not-quite-so-legal-but-state-funded-so-good-luck-fighting-that-one) will be so close behind to stop/exploit/both as to make the exploration very inconvenient. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it won't happen organically over a period of time like email did.
Less and less of a counter example. If you leave out work mailboxes, most people these days don't send their email any more: they ask Google, Microsoft, or their ISP to do it from them, from their web browser.
Some people are worried about Facebook taking over the internet? First of all, I'm worried about the web taking over the internet. And becoming more and more centralized in the process.
Alas, any truly distributed scheme will face the lack of symmetric bandwidth. Which is why MegaUpload ever existed in the first place: if we could upload as fast as we download, distributed networks such as Bittorent would be too damn efficient. (On average, we're ultimately limited by the smallest of the two. Upload minus download is exactly zero over a closed peer to peer network.)
Less and less of a counter example. If you leave out work mailboxes, most people these days don't send their email any more: they ask Google, Microsoft, or their ISP to do it from them, from their web browser.
Federated is not the same as peer-to-peer. While there are big providers, email is still open to anybody with a non-dynamic IP address, and the fact that almost everyone uses third-party servers doesn't change that.
My point is, there are fewer and fewer email providers, and they are getting bigger and bigger. If for some reason 95% of the population had a gmail account, Google could be tempted to shut down all SMTP communications. Technically that would remove them from the federation. Practically, that would remove everyone else from the federation (they are on the bigger half on the network, after all).
Another, more realistic possibility is that a consortium arises to fight spam, and the result is that email that doesn't come from big players or registered entities will simply be ignored, on the grounds that most mail from little domains would be spam (which by the way is probably true). The next step will be about refraining themselves to send email that look like spam, never mind the freedom of speech issues that will ensue.
And voilà, we have a world without spam. Too bad I can't send email to most of my friends any more (I control my own domain name).
Now Facebook is even worse. It already took over. You could try and build a federation, but unless you can force Facebook to communicate with it, it will still be a mere competitor, which starts at the wrong side of the network effect. Just like any Facebook competitor, actually.
I have studied XMPP and the whole protocol stack, compared to everything else I could find out there (in a paper I'm working on). However, the conclusion is that XMPP is not worth the an investment although it looks really fascinating at first and second thought. It's pretty much doable with simpler web technology, webstandards also help to keep out the madness that XMPP calls standards..
The biggest selling points of XMPP are that everbody already has XMPP. The counter argument that weakens this position is that everybody already has email, an IP and a phone number too.
1) All the people are on facebook. Only a % use firefox (as opposed to chrome, and all the others,) so this doesn't actually mirror your existing friend network, let alone solve the problem of making it easier (which is the only way people will actually switch.)
2) Facebook and google chat already have a list of your friends/contacts right there to hand. Firefox would need to gather this data somehow, which would either be intrusive (think LinkedIn "import your gmail contacts") or annoying (I am not going to mess around exporting things manually, and neither will the real humans).
3) Existing network implementations. As per Adam Lerymenko's "Redecentralize" talk[1], all the existing services are based on centralised network architectures. Unless Mozilla build their own central network of contacts etc, we'll be stuck using the existing monolithic sites that don't respect privacy as backends. Which (as per the Talkilla example) isn't the point. If Zero tier one et al are successful one day, then maybe we'll all be own our own separate VPNs with our friends (although that doesn't mirror the global social graph either.)
[1] http://redecentralize.org/interviews/2013/07/30/02-adam-zero...