The current fashion to require a FB/Twitter account to sign up to a web app (eg @lanyrd) makes me uncomfortable. 
Dan Fairs
danfairs
@danfairs I’m an OpenID advocate, so I’m totally with you – but the benefits of Twitter as an identity platform were too big to ignore 
Simon Willison
simonw
When an original OpenID advocate like @simonw can’t muster enough benefits to adopt OpenID for one of his own sites, it’s time to reconsider the product we’re selling. Simon Willison
simonw
This exchange prompted some interesting discussion (on Flickr) on the relative benefits of the OpenID system versus social authentication via Facebook Connect or Twitter. The core difference is generally that OpenID is essentially just a login/authentication protocol and carries very little additional information with it. Twitter and Facebook allow you to log in but also provide access to all the social data associated with those accounts – your connections, your interests, etc.
I’m still a big fan of any system that lets me streamline my identity management, but on a macro scale I much prefer OpenID as a login provider. It’s flexible, it’s portable to other providers, and it doesn’t require me to give write access to a site or application if I don’t want to. All I want to do is validate my account, not provide the means for an external site to act on my behalf.
Pete has some thoughts about this as well, which generally match my own sentiments.
Is there a word to describe the depression the Internet causes me on a daily basis?
I propose rasteria.
Give your customers the choice: OpenID (Google, Yahoo, AOL, MySpace, Flickr, Blogger, France Telecom, Telecom Italia, Hyves, NTT) or OAuth (Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin) or Windows LiveID (Microsoft) – all in one easy to deploy, consistent user experience: http://www.janrain.com/product…