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
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 āMessage to the voidā:
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 āsocial webā āand even for that it's being held back by the absence of a ācontent independentā 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.
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to acka47@openbiblio.social last edited by
@acka47 the core of the complaint is that people want to handle one key and one key only. they don't want to map terms to IRIs, or IRIs to terms. they'd prefer picking exactly one symbol and use that as the property key.
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to oblomov@sociale.network last edited by
@oblomov yeah, there's the old "it's like email but for websites!" which isn't terribly inaccurate, but that's honestly more a consequence of "HTTP POST to ldp:inbox" than anything else in AP. the side effects for each activity kinda stray from that model and go into almost RPC-like territory. there's also some potential redundancy with HTTP verbs, but that's because HTTP verbs don't notify arbitrary audiences (although i guess they could do that with a header!)
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to polotek@social.polotek.net last edited by
@polotek me personally? i'm not much of a coder, i'm way better at designing a system and describing how it should work, not so much actually building it. although i am in talks with some folks who seem interested, so uh... maybe check back in like 5 years? or heck, possibly even two if we're lucky!
-
blaine@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh nice writeup! Just glancing, so without getting into detail, I think I agree.
This is perhaps my own bias in all of this, but it's interesting that one of the most-consistent aspect of Fedi implementations is their reliance on Webfinger.
I worked on that part because I didn't think the data format stuff really mattered that much, and at worst was going to be stifling. It was excluded from AP for political, http fundamentalist reasons, but [imho] is essential to the networks functioning.
-
blaine@mastodon.socialreplied to blaine@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh linking, which as you point out is key ā to people ā depends on regular people being able to share their names. I learned a long time ago that most people aren't good at groking the HTTP part of links, because the structure of links is actually really complex. When you mention xmpp and email, the identifier is the thing that makes both of those networks work.
For me, "fedi" or "AP" or the social web or whatever we want to call it has always been about making personal identity linkable.