@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)

@pfefferle@mastodon.social managing blogs is so annoying though :(

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/?

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/?

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/?

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/?

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/?

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/?

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/?

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/?

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/?

the main contention is a disconnect between #ActivityPub as a spec and #fediverse as a protocol/network. a lot of problems cited were with the fediverse as implemented, wishful thinking about what could be changed in spec, many backwards-incompatible, mostly in service of making fediverse impl less painful.

there is a recurring refrain about implementers deciding they don't care to implement AP as specified, and that this indicates a problem with the spec, not a problem with implementers.

2/?