idk where to really put this (might turn into a blog post later or something).
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
now there's a few thoughts i have here:
#fediverse culturally seems to ignore a lot of other things as well. they ignore http caching for example. they ignore http status codes like 301 Permanent Redirect. these requirements are arguably more important than context, and they *still* get ignored.
in fact, most fedi software is mostly just reimplementing Web browsers, but with what they consider to be the "bare minimum" of compliance. and the web they let you browse is smaller than the Web
22/?
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
are these things part of the "protocol"? how far does the "protocol" extend to cover? because, as we established, #ActivityPub is not enough to build a fully functional #fediverse -- and a lot of extensions and additional specs are things that ought to be included in this "protocol", insofar as this "protocol" is desirable.
the other thought:
if you ignore things, that means there are cases you're not handling, losing out on robustness. ignoring context is to ignore shared understanding.
23/?
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
so what do you actually lose out on when you ignore json-ld context?
you first have to fall back to the "implicit context", where AS2 terms are generally agreed upon, but nothing else is guaranteed.
take something like `discoverable` from mastodon. what does it mean? well, it means whatever is defined in the mastodon codebase and documentation. so we could represent that as http://joinmastodon.org/ns#discoverable or shorten that with a prefix. but if we do, then most #fediverse will choke on that.
24/?
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
this is because #fediverse is ignoring context. the implicit context is that `discoverable` means `http://joinmastodon.org/ns#discoverable` but they don't know that. so they can't actually handle the extension in its fullest form.
what AS2 calls out as "full support for extensions" requires being able to identify this equivalence and handle it. again, fedi does... let's call it "partial support".
the "implicit context" is now a hardcoded but unstated requirement of this "protocol".
25/?
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by trwnh@mastodon.social
which is to say: #fediverse software generally expects LD-aware producers to compact against their own "implicit context", but they don't always define that context. it's left undeclared and undefined. or it actually *is* declared, but if you give them their own expanded form then they'll not understand it.
it's like someone saying hey, when i say "knows", i mean "is familiar with"
and then you say "john is familiar with sally"
and they respond WTF? what does "is familiar with" mean?
26/?
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
it's like... you literally just told me "knows" = "is familiar with", but because of your own ignoring of your own context, you can't handle me saying "is familiar with"?
in this way, as long as the #fediverse remains ignorant of context, they will remain fragile and without any sort of robustness in their "protocol".
the alternative they have is to extend the only context they share, which is the AS2 one. but this doesn't solve the problem. it just officially blesses a single term.
27/?
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
if you want to turn "activitystreams" into a "protocol" then sure i guess you can do that
but why? what are the needs we're trying to address here? of what purpose is your "protocol"? social networking? you want a "social networking protocol"?
before you convince people that a "social networking protocol" is necessary, you have to convince people that a "social network" is necessary.
but more importantly, you are contrasting that "social networking protocol" against the "social Web".
28/?
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
it is my personal belief that this whole "closed-world social network" vs "open-world social Web" thing is leading to a big disconnect that makes addressing people's needs harder.
because, to be on the "network", you neglect being on the "Web".
sure, your software might still publish your "posts" as Web resources, but that's it. you're not actually granted control or ability to manage Web resources for yourself.
and that's why #ActivityPub C2S is being neglected, among many other things
29/?
-
pfefferle@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh you should definitely use a blog
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
i am personally more in favor of a "social Web" than a "social network".
what i want to do is make it easier for anyone to make a website, and to manage that website.
i want those websites to be able to link to each other in well-defined and clearly-understood ways.
i want to make friends and express myself to the fullest, in varying contexts on various websites, without context collapse.
but it feels like #fediverse is more interested in replicating the "social network" paradigm.
30/30
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to pfefferle@mastodon.social last edited by
@pfefferle managing blogs is so annoying though
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
addendum 31/30
there's a whole lot of things i could say about "how we get there" but the thread was getting long enough and i want to cut it off here and clean it up into a blog post or something, without drifting too far off the original topic which was to voice my thoughts about the divide itself
-
trittriton@shelter.moereplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh Is something like
https://midnight.pub/or BBS (on the #Gemini protocol):
https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/bbs.geminispace.org/
gemini://bbs.geminispace.orgor Station:
https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/station.martinrue.com/
gemini://station.martinrue.comor “Message to the void”:
https://void.si3t.ch/ -
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trittriton@shelter.moe last edited by
@TritTriton idk but it doesn't seem like it at first glance. i'm thinking more about something that shows up in a web browser, combined with another thing that lets you author and manage web resources more easily than current tooling
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@TritTriton it's more like "ugh can we go back to blogs and forums and then build from there? we took a wrong turn with the rise of social media"
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
addendum 32/30
there's a separate thought experiment you could do about what it really takes for a "social networking protocol" because honestly you don't even need http. you can do "social networking" over xmpp or email or whatever. or invent your own way to send bytes over tcp/udp/whatever (inb4 xkcd)
seriously tho, newsletters and deltachat and movim and a bunch of other things show that you can do it
-
oblomov@sociale.networkreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh this was a fascinating read, thanks for sharing. Looking forward to the blog post.
I've had thoughts along those lines since I've started using Mastodon and getting familiar with AP, which I always saw as an extension of email and Usenet rather than a more general tool for the “social web” —and even for that it's being held back by the absence of a “content independent” AP server (AFAIK the only one in development is Vocata, and it still has some way to go).
-
polotek@social.polotek.netreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh thanks for writing this thread. It sparked a lot of thoughts for me.
I do have one response in the form of a question. What's stopping you from just doing the thing you want? You don't really need permission.
-
acka47@openbiblio.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh Thanks for the thread! Coming myself from a linked data background and having adopted a simple use of JSON-LD as Linked Open Usable Data (LOUD), I never understood (and still don't understand) what problems people have with JSON-LD in AP and AS. I am much in favour of an open world approach. It is quite powerful if people share their extensions and try to find and reuse solutions by others. In the end, we'd create shared data models together: a social act for the social web.