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.»

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.

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.

"Is a" and "has a" are worlds apart.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

Forteller already addressed both these questions!