idk where to really put this (might turn into a blog post later or something). it's what you might call a "hot take", certainly a heterodox one to some parts of the broader #fediverse community. this
idk where to really put this (might turn into a blog post later or something). it's what you might call a "hot take", certainly a heterodox one to some parts of the broader #fediverse community. this
idk where to really put this (might turn into a blog post later or something). it's what you might call a "hot take", certainly a heterodox one to some parts of the broader #fediverse community. this is in response to recent discussion on "what do you want to see from AP/AS2 specs" (in context of wg rechartering) mostly devolving into people complaining about JSON-LD and extensibility, some even about namespacing in general (there was a suggestion to use UUID vocab terms. i'm not joking)
1/?
You're viewing part of a thread.
<gestures to the sign>
https://social.coop/@MichaelTBacon/110634358031380559
Non-corporate/non-VC social media really needs to stop hating on "walled gardens" and start thinking about how you mind the gate that lets you into the garden and who gets in and who gets out.
If this exclusion still seems bad, start with "fascists" and then work outward from there.
I want fedi folks to start thinking about commons instead of getting hung up on stuff that's basically warmed over "the cathedral and the bazaar."
All functional commons involve inclusion and exclusion. They are neither purely closed nor open. They are variously open or closed depending on the combination of who you are and what you want to do.
@MichaelTBacon i think you're using closed/open in a different way from how i'm using it, which for formal logic means either "everything is true unless it's false" or "there are some things i don't know, and they aren't necessarily false, i just don't know"
@MichaelTBacon@social.coop In other words, a "protocol" needs to know everything there is to know, and it is undesirable to have unknowns. Contrast with the viewpoint that it's perfectly fine to have unknowns, and in fact, you can expect unknowns by default. You'll never have a complete view of the universe.
In that regard, I have to say that I think I'm still in a little bit of a grey area. The power of AP is in the fact that it can socialize a wide range of things, and I don't think that world should be closed in advanced.
At the same time, a protocol needs a set of sub-standards at least (lots of old IETF protocols had CAPABILITY commands) that let you figure out which specific closed world you're operating in.
@MichaelTBacon@social.coop i'm rotating in my head the idea of a FEP that defines a conformance profile for a "social networking profile" that basically formalizes what you'd need to implement a "fediverse network", basically as a superset of AS2+AP (because AP is not enough on its own, it says nothing about message shapes or how to interpret specific props in a social network setting)
@MichaelTBacon@social.coop actually my main reservations about it are like
- how much do i base it off of current practices, and how much do i base it off of correct practices?
- is it worth the effort? is any project going to be on board with it?
- no really, is it worth the effort? should i be putting that effort into doing the better thing from the start?
If I can give unsolicited advice on nebulous question . . . ;)
- If it's going to get to correct practices, there has to be a bridge to get there from current practices. Nothing will make a big jump without a transition process.
- It's not worth the effort if you do it alone, because no one else will be invested in it.
Those may be totally useless or non-sequitur to your actual concerns. Wouldn't be the first time in this thread alone I misunderstood!
@MichaelTBacon@social.coop right, i'm just wondering how to nudge implementers in the "right" direction on here (story of my life for the past 5 years lol)
@MichaelTBacon@social.coop unfortunately the common response to "can we make things better" is "we need $200k"
On a vaguely related note, I think a really interesting way to do a proof of concept of this would be to demonstrate its use in a social media game.
The old adage that everything on the internet truly only takes off at first as either games or porn is still somewhat relevant. I think a mastodon-adjacent but very much not mastodon-specific form of social gaming could be really fun, demonstrate some ideas, and bring a different set of people to the fedi.
@trwnh@mastodon.social Ah, yes, I did miss that distinction, and it's been long enough since I did formal logic that it didn't ring a bell. I agree with your point too but yes, I see what you're doing is different.