2 days ago
Mike Macgirvin 🖥️ wrote the following post 2 days ago
2 days ago
In my opinion, the best thing for the social web is creating a network of networks via bridging and multi-protocol platforms. It spurs innovation since you have competition and different ideas from different teams. Good ideas will spread, and less than ideal ideas will dwindle in use. Protocols and platforms can implement what is important to them. And people can choose their social experience.
ActivityPub is not going to give up its goal of decentralization down to the level of server or even user. AT Protocol is not going to give up its goal of a consistent user experience. Nomad/Zot is not going to give up its goal of nomadic identity combined with data portability & synchronization. OpenWebAuth is not going to give up federated single sign on. Secure Scuttlebutt is not going to give up its ability to transfer messages offline. Nostr is not going to give up on micropayments.
But, despite that, there are common features such as posts and replies and images and videos. Those could all be transferred between protocols and platforms without any issues. Creating bridges would be a good alternative to trying to get everyone to agree on one protocol.
ActivityPub is not going to give up its goal of decentralization down to the level of server or even user. AT Protocol is not going to give up its goal of a consistent user experience. Nomad/Zot is not going to give up its goal of nomadic identity combined with data portability & synchronization. OpenWebAuth is not going to give up federated single sign on. Secure Scuttlebutt is not going to give up its ability to transfer messages offline. Nostr is not going to give up on micropayments.
But, despite that, there are common features such as posts and replies and images and videos. Those could all be transferred between protocols and platforms without any issues. Creating bridges would be a good alternative to trying to get everyone to agree on one protocol.
@Scott M. Stolz Wasn't trying to make a big issue out of it, just found it a bit amusing. :)
The important takeaway from your post, at least to me, is that we don't have to limit ourselves to what already exists and is popular. And that as long as protocols stay open, there's really no limits.
The important takeaway from your post, at least to me, is that we don't have to limit ourselves to what already exists and is popular. And that as long as protocols stay open, there's really no limits.
@Harald Eilertsen It is a good distinction to make though.
That is why we need a good website, good documentation, and be active in the community and events. "Build it and they will come" may work in that movie, but it certainly does not work in the real world. People can't use what they don't know exists.
That is why we need a good website, good documentation, and be active in the community and events. "Build it and they will come" may work in that movie, but it certainly does not work in the real world. People can't use what they don't know exists.
3 days ago
It seems like a lot of people have forgotten the lessons taught in Star Wars. No matter how good your intentions are, going over to the dark side will just corrupt you and taint any cause you support.
2 days ago
It all sounds rather silly since I can literally use copy and paste to say:
Jupiter says "As for quotes, these people don't even now that quotes are possible in social media."
Jupiter says "As for quotes, these people don't even now that quotes are possible in social media."
2 days ago
Take a look at the feed of popular posts on any large Mastodon instance, and see how many of them are a screenshot of somebody else's post.
1 day ago
@Jupiter Rowland That is a factor, but even if we had a native mobile app, we would still have more feature, just like the Facebook app has more features than the Twitter/X and Mastodon apps. Part of it is because Mastodon is modelled after Twitter, and Twitter never was feature-rich.
3 days ago
The only way to effectively deal with conflicting interests and conflicts between diverse groups of people and diverse individuals is to have a set of rules that apply to everyone (on the server, at the event, part of the organization, etc.), regardless of what group or tribe they belong to.
Some examples: No harassment. Period. No death threats. Period. No offensive name calling. Period. No trolling. Period.
If you give people from your group or tribe a free pass to harass outsiders, then it just degrades to "we can harass you, but you can't harass us" which is unfair and toxic. It is also counterproductive, since it stirs up more conflict and causes resentment between groups and individuals. If you want to make things worse, only enforce the rules in one direction. This is where some of the "we don't feel welcome on the fediverse" comes from: rules being enforced only in one direction.
It does not matter if you are white, black, brown, LGB, trans, QIA+, purple, polka dotted, etc. People should not be harassing each other, and ideally platforms should prohibit harassment from everyone. That would create a safe space for everyone, including blacks, trans, LGB, etc. because the people creating toxic posts are banned or blocked. And people, especially minorities, are more likely to speak freely if they are not going to be harassed.
Some examples: No harassment. Period. No death threats. Period. No offensive name calling. Period. No trolling. Period.
If you give people from your group or tribe a free pass to harass outsiders, then it just degrades to "we can harass you, but you can't harass us" which is unfair and toxic. It is also counterproductive, since it stirs up more conflict and causes resentment between groups and individuals. If you want to make things worse, only enforce the rules in one direction. This is where some of the "we don't feel welcome on the fediverse" comes from: rules being enforced only in one direction.
It does not matter if you are white, black, brown, LGB, trans, QIA+, purple, polka dotted, etc. People should not be harassing each other, and ideally platforms should prohibit harassment from everyone. That would create a safe space for everyone, including blacks, trans, LGB, etc. because the people creating toxic posts are banned or blocked. And people, especially minorities, are more likely to speak freely if they are not going to be harassed.
3 days ago
@Ulrich (Hubzilla)
I think it certainly attracts a certain crowd, but I have been in plenty of online communities where we respect each other and behave. This includes being able to debate controversial issues without resorting to name calling and threats. So I know that respectful online communities can exist and thrive.
I also acknowledge that different communities will have different cultures and different rules. And I think that people should have free speech (not including illegal content, obviously). That is what makes the fediverse, especially Hubzilla, so powerful. You can move to a server with the rules of your liking, or even run your own fediverse server with your own rules. For the ultimate level of free speech, you run your own server.
But on the server and community level, there are community rules. If you want an environment that attracts good people who don't want to hurt other people, you have to lay the foundation by treating everyone equally. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and is treated as such.
That is how I run my communities. If someone does not like it, they can go elsewhere. That's what freedom is about.
Is it boring? Maybe for some. But it is possible to have a rigorous debate without wishing someone dead, making threats, doxing them, and using offensive slurs. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to disagree with someone without resorting to personal attacks and violence.
I think that's one of the great attractions of social media. You don't have to be respectful. And so social media shows the dark side of people. People ‘beat up’ people who don't belong to their ‘clan’. Yes, rules are necessary, but they're boring.
I think it certainly attracts a certain crowd, but I have been in plenty of online communities where we respect each other and behave. This includes being able to debate controversial issues without resorting to name calling and threats. So I know that respectful online communities can exist and thrive.
I also acknowledge that different communities will have different cultures and different rules. And I think that people should have free speech (not including illegal content, obviously). That is what makes the fediverse, especially Hubzilla, so powerful. You can move to a server with the rules of your liking, or even run your own fediverse server with your own rules. For the ultimate level of free speech, you run your own server.
But on the server and community level, there are community rules. If you want an environment that attracts good people who don't want to hurt other people, you have to lay the foundation by treating everyone equally. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and is treated as such.
That is how I run my communities. If someone does not like it, they can go elsewhere. That's what freedom is about.
Is it boring? Maybe for some. But it is possible to have a rigorous debate without wishing someone dead, making threats, doxing them, and using offensive slurs. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to disagree with someone without resorting to personal attacks and violence.
12 days ago
I know these things are called sugar cookies, but I call them sand cookies, for obvious reasons. One second, I need a drink.
12 days ago
It is hard or impossible to implement change and prevent bad things from happening if we don't understand why they happen.
That is why history is so important, even the parts we find offensive. Maybe especially the parts we find offensive. It is a lesson on what not to do in the future. Anyone who ignores history is doomed to repeat it.
Likewise, not understanding why something happens will make us ill-equipped to stop it from happening again.
That is why history is so important, even the parts we find offensive. Maybe especially the parts we find offensive. It is a lesson on what not to do in the future. Anyone who ignores history is doomed to repeat it.
Likewise, not understanding why something happens will make us ill-equipped to stop it from happening again.
29 days ago
If you read the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you will notice that it guarantees rights to people... not just citizens... to people.
I don't care what your political persuasion is. Rights aren't just for you. They are for everyone.
I don't care what your political persuasion is. Rights aren't just for you. They are for everyone.
@hosh I understand you point of view, but you have to remember that not all of them were slave owners. In fact, half of them were abolitionists, who wanted to end slavery. And the abolitionists weren't stupid. Even though they had to compromise on slavery to get the Constitution ratified, they inserted language into the Constitution that they hoped would be interpreted to apply to all people in the future. Slavery was a worldwide institution at that point, and they did not have the power at that time to stop it. After slavery was abolished and after the Civil Right Act was passed, their vision for a better future was finally be implemented, at least in law. We are still waiting for certain parts of the population to catch up, but at least the law is pretty clear. It is illegal to violate anyone's rights, regardless of the color of their skin.
Think of it this way. Just because your neighbor is a thief, that does not make you a thief. And, likewise, just because some of the Founding Fathers had slaves, that did not mean all of them had slaves. A large percentage of them we very vocal abolitionists.
Think of it this way. Just because your neighbor is a thief, that does not make you a thief. And, likewise, just because some of the Founding Fathers had slaves, that did not mean all of them had slaves. A large percentage of them we very vocal abolitionists.
Personally, I think it is important, especially in this political environment where people's rights are being violated, that we point out that the U.S. Constitution clearly says the U.S. government cannot violate your rights. Regardless of where one wants to draw their moral stance from, U.S. government officials are bound by the Constitution and laws, and nothing else. I could cite various declarations of human rights, but none of that matters. The courts will enforce the U.S. Constitution, not other documents.
29 days ago
Agreeing with both of you - we are speaking of laws (rather than morals) here, and precedent of legal interpretation. It's only that, just as laws can be improved by constitutional ammendments, they may also be degraded, such as by filling the courts with corrupt or illiberal judges and by discovering similar loopholes to those that allowed the constitution to be passed in the first place. I don't think that a system has been invented that cannot be corrupted. Weaknesses can be exploited. The bedrock is shown to be cleft with fissures; so that, before you know it, you find Guantanamo Bay sized gaps. Here in Israel, where there are fewer checks and balances than in the US, the power of the judiciary is under attack. Netanyahu is claiming that the courts are "anti-democratic", and that they should not be permitted to overrule the bills passed by politicians, because their rulings do not respect "the will of the people". Similar backsliding has been taking place in countries all around the world, so that we should see these processes as being very much as the same trend.
29 days ago
Evan Prodromou wrote the following post 29 days agoYes, it is time to move beyond left vs. right, class warfare, and racism & race-based policies.
Build an actual system that is fair for everyone, not just particular groups or tribes. And I am not talking about a utopia. There will always be competing and conflicting interests. But that does not mean the rules of the playing field can't be fair, and that we can't have fair compensation for every stakeholder in an organization or business, and that we can't be compassionate to our fellow human beings.
I've been advocating this for decades now. But most people are so engrained in their "us versus them" mentality that they are unwilling to create a fair system. Most people only want a system that benefits them and their tribe, and aren't really concerned with fairness and rights for all.
We could build a better society, but will we?
29 days ago
At this point, it is hard to tell what will happen. It is clear that it is no longer "business as usual," as they say.
22 days ago
It is possible to build a better society, but we have to be vigorous. For awhile we were moving towards a less racist society, at least in the United States. Perfect? No. But much better than the past, and most people disapproved of racism. But then something happened. The racists basically starting promoting their rhetoric, implementing policies, and changing the curriculum in schools to promote racist ideas such as favoring one race over another. Everything that was done previously was undone over time. So even though we can move forward, we can also move backwards.
29 days ago
There has been a lot discussion about whether Bluesky is truly capable of being decentralized or not, especially considering the costs of replicating some of the centralized services that Bluesky offers. That is a valid question that is subject to debate. Technically it can be decentralized, but so far hasn't been... for a variety of reasons.
I think that Bluesky and the Fediverse look at things very differently.
When the Fediverse looks at decentralization, they think of servers and platforms that could be run by individuals or small communities. Decentralized to the level of the individual. And the fediverse community seems to be adverse to large instances, as seen by many complaints that certain Mastodon instances are becoming too large.
But Bluesky is looking at the organization level. In other words, could another large organization create another competing Twitter on the AT Protocol? Or could some organization create a Facebook or TikTok equivalent on the AT Protocol? Basically the concept of having the equivalents of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok all being able to talk to one another, all run by different organizations, not individuals.
Basically, how the AT Protocol becomes decentralized is when some organization creates a TikTok equivalent that uses AT Protocol, as an example, and they create their own AT Protocol stack to support it. One billionaire recently offered money to anyone who would build one.
So we are talking about different levels of decentralization here: the organizational level or the individual level.
I don't think these camps will ever agree on what decentralization means since they look at things very differently. Luckily these protocols can be bridged, and some platforms are multi-protocol, which would allow people to choose the level of decentralization they want.
#fediverse #bluesky #activitypub #atproto #atprotocol
I think that Bluesky and the Fediverse look at things very differently.
When the Fediverse looks at decentralization, they think of servers and platforms that could be run by individuals or small communities. Decentralized to the level of the individual. And the fediverse community seems to be adverse to large instances, as seen by many complaints that certain Mastodon instances are becoming too large.
But Bluesky is looking at the organization level. In other words, could another large organization create another competing Twitter on the AT Protocol? Or could some organization create a Facebook or TikTok equivalent on the AT Protocol? Basically the concept of having the equivalents of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok all being able to talk to one another, all run by different organizations, not individuals.
Basically, how the AT Protocol becomes decentralized is when some organization creates a TikTok equivalent that uses AT Protocol, as an example, and they create their own AT Protocol stack to support it. One billionaire recently offered money to anyone who would build one.
So we are talking about different levels of decentralization here: the organizational level or the individual level.
I don't think these camps will ever agree on what decentralization means since they look at things very differently. Luckily these protocols can be bridged, and some platforms are multi-protocol, which would allow people to choose the level of decentralization they want.
#fediverse #bluesky #activitypub #atproto #atprotocol
29 days ago
Bob Mottram of Libreserver wrote this 
https://epicyon.libreserver.org/users/bob/statuses/114251181576880920 - placing control over communications in the hands of the individual needs to be the longterm goal I think, so whatever we can do to make the tech easier and more accessible and to eliminate the middlemen, the better.
https://epicyon.libreserver.org/users/bob/statuses/114251181576880920 - placing control over communications in the hands of the individual needs to be the longterm goal I think, so whatever we can do to make the tech easier and more accessible and to eliminate the middlemen, the better.