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/?
i think this disconnect between #ActivityPub and #fediverse honestly goes a lot deeper than people might realize. and that is because the problem AP tries to solve is actually completely different from what fedi is trying to do.
the concept of a nebulous but mostly singular “network” or “protocol” (made up of partially overlapping parts) is core to what i’ll call “fedi mindset”. the assumption is that you can join the fedi “network” by implementing the fedi “protocol”. and that AP is this.
3/?
but this assumption starts to break down when you look a little closer.
first, consider #ActivityPub C2S. why is there close to zero usage of this in #fediverse software? simple: it doesn’t solve any needs for building a “network” “protocol”.
now consider S2S. why are there zero compliant impls in fedi? because AP as specified doesn’t address the needs of fedi. what does fedi need? well, i find it telling that the “real” reason AP was adopted was… to implement followers-only posts.
4/?
which is to say: the primary reason that #ActivityPub is used (to the extent you can say it is being used at all) in the #fediverse is mostly historical.
fedi grew out of a long line of open protocols, and before AP was adopted, it was at the point where people primarily used “activity streams” as their vocabulary and data model, stuffed into atom feeds. atom feeds don’t do private posts unless you make an entirely new access-controlled feed, possibly with a token of some sort. hence, AS2.
5/?
when #ActivityPub was being standardized alongside AS2 it basically had two compelling reasons for what would become the #fediverse to adopt it:
it was built on AS2, which was an evolution of AS1, which was already being used. so it wasn’t hard to make the jump.
it made followers-only posts possible, because while atom feeds could do this, it was wildly inconvenient to actually do it that way. posting something private to an inbox is a lot simpler, no juggling access control tokens.
6/?
but beyond that, what does #ActivityPub actually do for #fediverse as a “network” “protocol”? basically nothing. you have a basic mechanism for delivering activities directly to subscribers, but no specified shape or structure for that payload. and you still need a lot of other specs to end up with something that talks to the “network”. even with AS2 vocab, you need more vocab extensions to express things you want to.
simply put, AP is not enough for a “protocol” to build a “network”.
7/?
@[email protected] This is related to my recent-ish realization (which I always knew on some level but never formulated explicitly) that AP simply does not have much to say about the mechanics of federation. And that there is basically nowhere that federation is defined; it is pretty much left as an implementation detail for the author of a server to figure out
but before you build a “protocol” for a “network”, consider: what even is a “network”, in this context? and, here’s the hot take: do you even want that kind of “network”? do you want a separate reified #fediverse network?
because the answer that #ActivityPub gives is actually a different one. There is no “AP network”, because AP as a protocol is not enough to build a concrete network. it is intended to provide, and exists in context of, the larger #Web.
8/?
this is the fundamental divide between #fediverse thinking and #Web thinking, where #ActivityPub straddles the line between both.
i’ve seen it said that the “open-world assumption” at the foundation of the Web is actually an undesirable thing for a “social networking protocol”, and as a consequence, specs built on that open-world assumption are “completely unsuitable” for that “protocol”.
but do we need a “social networking protocol”? do we even need “social networks” in the first place?
9/?
to build the #fediverse as its own “social networking protocol” then seemingly requires that we instead go with the closed-world assumption, contrary to the #Web
it requires ahead-of-time communication and coordination, where implementers need to be willing and available to talk to any other implementer, and this load grows with every new implementer.
it requires you to be aware of other extensions, present and future, because your extension might conflict with someone else’s extension.
10/?
the way extensibility works in a closed-world #fediverse is that “every implementer talks to every other implementer”. or maybe there is a central registry of extensions that everyone submits to their authority, as stewards of the “protocol” that is used to build the “network”. this trades out the n:n relation between implementers and other implementers, for an n:1 relation between implementers and the central registry.
the way extensibility works in an open-world #Web is you just do it.
11/?
@[email protected]
<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.
@trwnh
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.