So here’s an interesting tidbit from the Google Talk developer info: (hat tip arstechnica)

We look forward to federating with any service provider who shares our belief in enabling user choice and open communications. We do believe, however, that it is important to balance openness with ensuring that we maintain a safe and reliable service that protects user privacy and blocks spam and other abuses. We are using the federation opportunity with EarthLink and Sipphone to develop a set of guidelines by which all members of the federated network can work together to ensure that we protect our users while maximizing the reach of the network. We are also eager to hear from other people in the industry about how best to build a federation model that is open, scalable, and ensures best-in-class user experiences.

Ah, I get it. Someone commented on my last post about Google Talk about server to server and federation, Google is working on it. I guess this is what they meant. I just wanted to weigh in and say that I don’t consider this open, just cause I know everyone is dying to know what I think. Open means open, as in services can interact without someone having to approve them. This describes a closed environment. Closed for all the right reasons, but closed none the less. It’s definitely possible to do bad things with good intentions. This is one of them. Closing a service to prevent spam now just hurts the platform overall in the long run. Go read Code and other Laws of Cyberspace if you haven’t already by the way, it’s killer.