Would you like to see full default interoperability between #ATproto and #ActivityPub without a bridge?

[trwnh@mastodon.social]

@evan @julian @wjmaggos what would you consider to be the "application domain" of HTTP, and what needs to be built above it? ironically, i think if you look at the OSI model, then HTTP is already at the uppermost "layer 7", the application layer -- and attempts to build networks on top of HTTP are in effect virtualizing lower layers! so instead of a virtual 3-7 on top of HTTP's 7, why not use HTTP's 7 directly? how many nested virtualized app layers do we need?

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@trwnh @julian @wjmaggos hypertext

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@trwnh @julian @wjmaggos "The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems."

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2616

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@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!

[quillmatiq@mastodon.social]

@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.

[quillmatiq@mastodon.social]

@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."

[wjmaggos@liberal.city]

@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@mastodon.social]

@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@liberal.city]

@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@mastodon.social]

@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.