As far as I understand, most (all?) fediverse #ActivityPub software does not use the Client-to-server protocol from the specs (https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#client-to-server-interactions) but rather use custom APIs instead.
-
Write software for online spaces where people can be safe!Though I have a slight issue with 'users', and feel that with that terminology you already lose the first round, esp. in social networking.
just small circles 🕊 (@smallcircles@social.coop)
To all the devs who still use "users" as common terminology. They are not your users. They are not junkies where you can just push your warez down their throat. People are checking your software out, for a whole host of different reasons. To see if your solution serves their needs. They are rich individuals with countless human traits, interests and dreams. By using the term you detach yourself emotionally. Don't other them as users. It has an alienating effect, in a time where we need to unite.
social.coop (social.coop)
"The farmer protects the hens against the fox by building a fence around them". A single word puts so much distance between people.
-
@smallcircles @evan @julian Feel free to find a better term to define the people that use the technology we developers give them. Doesn't change the fact the we developers are responsible for our code, not those that use it.
-
Yes, we must be responsible, create safe spaces, etc. Yet how we talk with or about other people matters a lot. There's endless debate around developer privilege, sometimes fair, sometimes not. But there is a lot of 'we know what is best for the user' explicit/implicit outcome.
If we are so diverse, why not walk that adventure together, discuss needs beyond the tech circle?
An analogy is development aid, where the West knows best what help to give.. they think.
-
@smallcircles @evan @julian I honestly don't care that much about philosophical abstractions and discussions. "My code must protect the rights and privacy of the people that use my code. Always. Provable." is my mantra :)
-
I am only observing that there is a missing focus on the social side, the soft and fluffy parts that many devs hate. And in return what we build is kind of a technosphere, missing the social layers to really click with people. Unless with the help of some 'digital transformation' which is the opposite of what we should be doing.. bring tech to be supportive of people, anticipate their true needs.
Anyway, I'm side-stepping. You know this well, and do wonders wrt help!
-
More interesting angle to your question, maybe why asked, is to "reimagine forums" in our new age of social networking.
Yesterday I had a discussion about https://blocks.githubnext.com "Reimagine repositories". Great ideation starting point. What is a repository actually? Container of a solution? Or .. what?
Maybe a forum is single-person software, attached to the social graph of the social web? Tapping into activity streams and knowledge bases. To 'slice' our personalized community views?
-
I often mention this 'peopleverse' as something to envision, a hypothetical place where our offline and online worlds seamlessly connect and support our daily lives.
It is a philosophical abstraction, but it is a useful one. What happens when I open my eyes in the morning and events starts flowing in on the single timeline of the life that I lead?
(One thing is that I can go online and engage in global-square twitter 2.0 where people build protection after the fact.)
-
@smallcircles @evan @julian I call it the "Internet of people" as opposed to the "internet of machines, companies" we have right now :)
-
Anyway, at this point I may make a cross-reference to old notes I made wrt major challenges we face, and still do today.
Major challenges for the Fediverse
Various forum topics highlights big challenges for the Fediverse to overcome. Below there is a list of those, and all of them are within scope of Social Coding #foundations to contribute to solutions. Challenge Desc…
Discuss Social Coding (discuss.coding.social)
I think we can only hope to address these challenges if we do much more than just care for our code and protect our users. I understand where you come from and underline your ethics and values. We are kindred spirits in the commons But I am arguing that we may benefit from a slight perspective shift to help reimagine social.
-
Yes, that is already a huge improvement. And such phrases help align minds and thinking to explore what that should mean in practice.
-
@steve @naturzukunft @skyfaller @hugh @bob
@evanGood thread!
I wanna collect C2S compliant projects here: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/delightful-fediverse-apps/issues/130I'm planning updates to the 4 fedi-related https://delightful.club lists and reorganising them. Have a humongous maintenance backlog too.
In this reorg I want to highlight the more interesting, unexplored and innovative directions that our fediverse may be evolving to.
The other day I had discussion on 2 top categories for fedi apps list: https://thoresson.social/@anders/114433900582811705
-
-
@smallcircles@social.coop personally, I feel that asking people to post or continue a discussion on another platform is a roadblock that shouldn't need to exist.
You can't do it on Discourse, but in NodeBB you can "categorize" a topic, even if it came from the microblog-fedi. Similarly to how you can import a reply tree into another Mastodon instance. That's the difference, that the software should support something like this, although I get that that's not always important to every piece of software.
Things get a little more confusing if a topic is already categorized, like a Lemmy/Piefed post in a community, so I expect some of that to change in the coming months.
End of the day it would look something like "cross-posting" as currently exists on the threadiverse.
-
@julian I like the general direction, and it is very promising. Liking too the collab between NodeBB, Discourse and Lemmy in this regard. Very important that for interop sake. Thank you for all your efforts on the forum taskforce!
-
@hugh @skyfaller part of the problem with how “underdefined” it is, is that we’re not talking about the big picture being there but mostly in need of filling in the gaps. we’re talking about “there is no agreed-upon authorization framework” levels of “underdefined”.
the other part is that it presupposes a wildly different topology than what fedi adheres to. the most natural interpretation of “client” is not something like Tusky. the AP client would be Mastodon itself as a client of an AP server
-
@hugh @skyfaller here, the AP server handles storage and delivery. i could then use mastodon/pixelfed/etc as clients to GET/POST against my outbox/inbox as needed, basically treating the AP server as a database of sorts, as well as a mail server of sorts.
most implementations of fedi are not like this and do not want to do this. they want to be monoliths. monoliths are “easy”. the will to abstract away social activity storage and delivery is largely not there.
-
Yes that's what has become clearer to me as more people outline what they think the gap is (surprise: they don't all agree on that). There's a chasm between what the people writing the spec were imagining, and what most projects that use AP are trying to do. While the lack of detail on authorisation is a pretty major problem, it now seems to me that to a fair extent the issue is more a mismatch between the conceptual model of the ActivityPub spec (thick clients doing the work, with servers passing messages between them) and what most fediverse projects are trying to do (tightly-coupled server-client apps that talk to each other).
-
@julian @strypey one wonders if it would perhaps be more expedient to just do the identity bits and have the data live on B rather than ferrying it back to A.
probably what’s needed is a framework for tracking which resources are equivalent to each other. say i crosspost from my website to a forum. the post exists as two resources, one on each site, even though they are the “same” post. maybe as:alsoKnownAs can help here?
-
@julian @smallcircles i think i may have said this to you before, but the precise pain point is less “i had to go to another website” and more “i can’t do anything on that other website”. the web is by design already federated in a sense, but we have built a second-layer nested/virtualized browser-within-a-browser. https://www.devever.net/~hl/webappcoupling
-
@hugh @skyfaller ah yeah, in a socialhub thread i called it an “impedance mismatch” and i mostly stand by that — fedi wants to do more than just sending notifications to inboxes, and reading notifications from those inboxes.
the other side of this is that the notifications themselves are often consumed as JSON-RPC instead of being kept around as bona fide resources. when’s the last time you stored a raw HTTP POST request/response message on disk? all fedi cares about is side effects…
