@kaniini There are a couple of good points in here, but this is a really cynical take on AP.

I'd agree it has some blindspots that need to be addressed, but lines such as "In an ideal world, the number of ActivityPub implementations would be zero." is pure hyperbole.

Further I would give it more deference if it presented a viable option as opposed to "this is bad, but I don't know how to do it better"

We gotta do better than this if we are to push forward.

@Are0h That's part of the upcoming series. And it's kinda been hinted at on their timelines (leveraging facets of Zot's apporach, using capability URIs vs implied actions, etc) @kaniini

@jalcine Aight, cool. Hopefully will get better because this isn't a great start.

There are some salient points about security that I absolutely agree with, but most of it just seems like editorializing.

I'd rather see problems identified and then explorations of possible ways to improve.

But I guess they're saving that for later. I hope.


@Are0h @kaniini @jalcine

well, this was meant to be kind of an explanatory post of what my present world view is on activitypub, having spent a year basically bringing up an AP implementation from scratch, and working in a codebase which built on AS2 with some elements of AP as a data model.

so it basically *is* editorializing on the topic.

the next blog post in that series that i'm working out in my head actually has to do with what a merged AP + Zot6 type protocol might look like, and what is good and bad about that. it will also attempt to explain in detail why tying personal identity and cryptographic tokens together is fundamentally unwise (although my post about Blind Key Rotation went into some explanation on why that is unwise too), and introduce a construction of capability URIs and proof responses as an alternative.

@kaniini @kaniini @jalcine

Yeah I know. I just think that's a poor way of going about it.

The proliferation of AP is providing a real opportunity for us to not only think about how we communicate but more effective ways to do it, a couple of which you name, which is cool.

I'm so down w/ the protocol being changed in a way that makes it better, but saying we shouldn't be using it at all is step backwards.

Cool. I'll wait for that. I really want to see viable options. Especially if they work

@Are0h @jalcine @kaniini I think one challenge we have to think about here is how we might be able to positively affect future versions of the protocol spec.

For better or for worse, this whole thing sits in the realm of WC3, and in some ways is the byproduct of attempting to please the multiple groups that populated the SocialWG. You've got Linked Data and IndieWeb people shoehorned into the same space as fedi developers, and many members of the group representing corporate entities that might be interested in a narrow application of it.

So far, the process for advancing the protocol to a new version that is, for example, aware of the notion of OCAP, is largely undefined beyond writing a whitepaper, putting out a CFP, and hoping other people in the space will adopt it.

@sean @kaniini @jalcine AP is popular because it's simple and it works. I absolutely agree the design isn't perfect because it does have some gaping holes, but as a protocol framework, it's really solid.

I say we build on that rather than lamenting the fact an imperfect idea is getting traction.

With all of these big brains floating around the fediverse, I know we can do better than 'this is bad, but I don't know the answer'.

This is such an opportunity to set a positive tone moving forward.

This. The challenge of federation is social, not technical. It's a much better situation to have an imperfect protocol that everyone uses than to endlessly iterate - every fork of the shared protocol splinters the network and gets us further away from the dream of an open, connected web.
@sean @kaniini @jalcine

Honestly, I'm not too worried about their being different forks, because that breeds diversity and resists stagnation.

That said, we do need to come to some type of common ground that we can build from. If it's not going to be AP, I want to see a tangible option so the proliferation of the fediverse isn't stunted.

I think we're closer to it than we think. We just need to refine and streamline the many wonderful ideas we have for the protocol.
@sean @kaniini @jalcine

I agree that we want diversity in Fediverse apps and services, but they all still need to share a protocol. If my server can't federate with your server because they dont have a shared language, there's no no Fediverse.
@sean @kaniini @jalcine


@jdormit @Are0h @sean @kaniini That's _still_ something that can be worked around. In the , there's a service that converts from different protocols (granary.io/) and even backfeeds and emits stuff to other platforms (brid.gy/ and fed.brid.gy/). We can push forward without leaving anyone behind.

@jalcine Well said. Let's improve on what we can improve on _and_ explore better ways that present themselves as we learn what works and what doesn't.

We are people well versed in solving difficult problems. We can do both.

@jdormit @sean @kaniini

Granary is really interesting. It still sort of rubs me the wrong way to have multiple versions of a protocol that require a translation layer though - seems like that undermines the whole point of a protocol!

@Are0h @sean @kaniini

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Social @ PV

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!