Would you like to see full default interoperability between #ATproto and #ActivityPub without a bridge?
General Discussion
47
Posts
8
Posters
2.8k
Views
-
@trwnh @julian @wjmaggos I am taking Computer Networks right now, and I asked the very same question. If we have application-layer protocols, what do we call the things like SOAP or ActivityPub that work on top of those protocols. The answer I got was that those are also layer 7. Once you get to layer 7, it's just 7 all the way up. Inverted turtle structure!
-
@wjmaggos @chris @blaine one of my big problems with it too. I think @anewsocial are aware of that limitation and are working on some solutions.
@evan @wjmaggos @chris @blaine @anewsocial
Appreciate all the kind words in the thread! That said, I still strongly believe opt-in is a feature, not a bug. The right solution isn't to force people onto networks they don't want to be a part of; it's to clean up the rough edges of unbridged interactions and content so it makes less of a difference.
-
@evan @wjmaggos @chris @blaine @anewsocial
Appreciate all the kind words in the thread! That said, I still strongly believe opt-in is a feature, not a bug. The right solution isn't to force people onto networks they don't want to be a part of; it's to clean up the rough edges of unbridged interactions and content so it makes less of a difference.
@evan @wjmaggos @chris @blaine @anewsocial
I understand the instinct of "make these work together", but there are technical and cultural differences that make it more than just two standards talking to each other. A couple of simple examples are "I don't want to be in a public, auditable firehose" or "I had a bad experience there, I don't trust them with my safety."
-
@evan @wjmaggos @chris @blaine @anewsocial
I understand the instinct of "make these work together", but there are technical and cultural differences that make it more than just two standards talking to each other. A couple of simple examples are "I don't want to be in a public, auditable firehose" or "I had a bad experience there, I don't trust them with my safety."
@quillmatiq @evan @chris @blaine @anewsocial
I understand if you don't want to have the conversation but these are public systems like blogging with your email address available, we just don't think of them like that. it's old school twitter, not even your network of friends and family on facebook. not having algos/ads doesn't mean everything isn't boostable to the world by default. maybe people want to use something designed to be inherently private, but that's not fedi etc. IMHO
-
@quillmatiq @evan @chris @blaine @anewsocial
I understand if you don't want to have the conversation but these are public systems like blogging with your email address available, we just don't think of them like that. it's old school twitter, not even your network of friends and family on facebook. not having algos/ads doesn't mean everything isn't boostable to the world by default. maybe people want to use something designed to be inherently private, but that's not fedi etc. IMHO
@wjmaggos @evan @chris @blaine @anewsocial
I agree with you there! But often it's not about *how* public things are, it's more about *where* they're public. In other words, many users I've spoken to who are either not bridged or are straight-up anti-bridge have chosen that route because they don't (yet) trust the entities on the other side to have that much ownership over their data. There's also a cohort who don't want to have to depend on *us* to bridge them either.
It's a lot more complex!
-
@wjmaggos @evan @chris @blaine @anewsocial
I agree with you there! But often it's not about *how* public things are, it's more about *where* they're public. In other words, many users I've spoken to who are either not bridged or are straight-up anti-bridge have chosen that route because they don't (yet) trust the entities on the other side to have that much ownership over their data. There's also a cohort who don't want to have to depend on *us* to bridge them either.
It's a lot more complex!
@quillmatiq @evan @chris @blaine @anewsocial
they're public on the internet! screenshots?
I think the complexity is mostly about having so few people here and thinking it will stay that way. that being here is safety through obscurity. that a fedi server is a community instead of much more a portal to a possibly universal social media network. they built and maintained this place (huge kudos!) to get away, but actually made the best network not to.
they need a fork that's default opt in.
-
@quillmatiq @evan @chris @blaine @anewsocial
they're public on the internet! screenshots?
I think the complexity is mostly about having so few people here and thinking it will stay that way. that being here is safety through obscurity. that a fedi server is a community instead of much more a portal to a possibly universal social media network. they built and maintained this place (huge kudos!) to get away, but actually made the best network not to.
they need a fork that's default opt in.
@wjmaggos @evan @chris @blaine @anewsocial
Huge difference between screenshotting vs always being a part of another network and another organization's infrastructure by default.
To be clear, I don't agree with Fediverse platforms depending on a blocklists, I much prefer approve-lists, but I don't think that's a popular opinion either.
-
System shared this topic on
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@deadsuperhero so, it's a two-sided market -- clients and servers. The traditional mechanism is a "ratchet" -- build up one side, then build up the other, and then build up the first.
So, yes, servers first, then clients, then more servers, more clients, and so on back and forth.
-
A working group might be able to come up with other, non-software strategies for dealing with this shit. Perhaps relying on new features in the software that don't actually ID anyone but could attach the status of having BEEN IDed or just let in and I'll take responsibility.
But it takes actually thinking about and studying a problem to come up with answers like that. You can't just shove your head up your ass and then yell at it.
-
@nitrml @fbinin @ret @mellifluousbox Should be noted that if we all actually did manage to get sentenced to prison we'd either break the system or end up in warehouses in the desert surrounded by overheated assholes in cammo.
Either way, problem solved.
-
@mellifluousbox It has to be thought about. Sometime soon people may have to decide if they're going to implement age verification or shut down their servers. If they're to be provided any answers, be they implemented options or a documented reason why this is just done, then the effort to come up with them needs to start before they're needed.
-
Also, you should give yourself a break and use the miscellany context.
-
@nitrml how do you think they’ll implement age verification on mastodon dot social? Special fork? No. It’ll be baked into the software, which will create a precedent for this to be implemented everywhere.
-
@gbargoud they’re free to make their own decisions about whether they comply or not. The instance I’m using right now is in violation of UK law. Probably Saudi law, Iranian law, Chinese law, etc etc… there’s no winning this.
-
@raphael @liaizon @smallcircles @django ha! There are a lot of Djangos involved in the social API.
