The W3C is chartering a group to work on social web standards, including ActivityPub
General Discussion
1
Posts
1
Posters
0
Views
-
The W3C is chartering a group to work on social web standards, including ActivityPub
They are asking for public and W3C member comments.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2025Dec/0000.html
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@almino SIM
-
O @evan acabou de dizer que a W3C tá trabalhando em geo localização pro #ActivityPub.
Vamos ter vários "Foursquare" no Fediverso?
-
🔴 Now live: 1st Brazilian #Fediverse Forum #WebSocialBR with @evan & @j12t
➡️ https://fediverse.tv/w/pMZr9K7RtyLLfa6JW2UVkP
#ActivityPub #SaveSocial #SciComm #SocialMedia #digitalsovereignty
-
Perfect! Let’s make something awesome :)
-
My approach to these issues is probably unfiltered, and I'm sorry if this makes my statements seem too categorical.
I should also point out that when I talk about Bluesky being tied to huge funding (and therefore adequate returns), I'm not expressing a moral judgment. I want to be completely non-partisan on the matter.
I simply wanted to provide my best explanation for the disruptions we're witnessing as a result of attempts at cross-pollination between the Blueskysphere and the Fedisphere.
Let me try to explain myself better:
considering the vertical nature of Bluesky PBC considering the horizontal nature of the Fediverse
I don't rule out the possibility of cross-pollination, but I do rule out the possibility of it being guided by the same principles.The development of the Fediverse is, in fact, driven by the community of developers who work only on the application layer and know that (almost) none of them has the power to decide on the "protocol." And it isn't based on a single business model. On the other hand, those who have decision-making power over the protocol know that any change would have a huge impact on an extremely diverse ecosystem. It's not easy to decide what to change because it's not easy to understand what impact such a change could have.
Bluesky's development, on the other hand, revolves around a single entity that holds decision-making power over the protocol, running the server and developing the app and APIs that dominate that ecosystem. And it's based on a business model that was already defined well before the protocol was created, with a protocol that was also developed with a business model in mind!The developers of the Fediverse were therefore Darwinianly selected by circumstances and today appear to be a bit more hacker-like, a bit more experimental, more adept at circumventing limitations, and (this isn't always a good thing...) more oriented toward community-driven financial support (and self-driven, because luckily for them, they all have IT jobs in a company). Moreover, not everyone is highly knowledgeable about the Activitypub protocol. And some of them are real "gourmets" of controversy...
Bluesky developers, on the other hand, seem decidedly more "secular" to me; they also have to deal with a more rigid protocol (definitely more protocol-based than the Activitypub protocol), strong centralized decision-making power, and objectively have more limited room for manoeuvre. Furthermore, these developers' livelihood model isn't clear to me (I mean, beyond their IT jobs at some company: do they all work for Bluesky PBC?).
I don't know... they seem like two worlds that aren't easily compatible, even from a social perspective...If this is true, then it shouldn't be surprising if the attitude of Bluesky stakeholders (the real ones, those sitting at the top) is positive only when a change could benefit their business model.
Conversely, the responses from Fediverse stakeholders (i.e., those dozen or so de facto influencers who, with a nod, can determine the public's favor or hostility toward an initiative) might seem more disappointing.I reiterate that even if I were right, this attitude wouldn't stop the new ideas germinating between the Fediverse and Bluesky developers.
It must be said, however, that since Bluesky was launched, I haven't seen any particular innovations. Recently, however, I've seen several new ideas emerge in the Fediverse, and these ideas, despite the rapidly declining user base, have led to very promising developments in the federated ecosystem over the past two years.All of this, however, would explain the communication difficulties between the two worlds, linked to the fact that the Bluesky leadership is too high-flying and the Fediverse stakeholders are too free-wheeling.
I hope I've explained myself better, despite the language barrier.
julian said in I also want to see #activitypub get some of the primitives that #atproto has such as decentralized identifiers (except for real), personal data stores, content addresses, etc.:
> This is an important observation we should take into consideration.My theory, however, would explain this reaction... :grin:
See you soon and have a good evening.
-
@benpate @andypiper @alisynthesis @WeirdWriter
I'm also in the year-end rally at my day job, but I do have a two-week Christmas vacation coming up. I'll see if I can whip up something then!
-
Hey Andy, thanks for the mention!
I might add a map of physical locations, and a map-based search for businesses.
@juergen_hubert - would you be interested in making a drawing or two of what this might look like? I'd be happy to make a prototype.
I have my hands full with.. stuff.. at the moment, so I'm not able to do much design work. But once we know what we're doing, the actual coding might only take an afternoon or two.
-
The W3C is chartering a group to work on social web standards, including ActivityPub
They are asking for public and W3C member comments.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2025Dec/0000.html
