@eb large capitalist organisations like facebook tend to dominate standards bodies since they have more time and resources to engage than hobbyists or small professional teams.
This means that their interests will dominate and their implementations will proliferate.
This logic is independent of the goodwill of individuals at fb.
We’ve seen this before e.g. web browser duopoly and DRM.
We need to avoid setting up that dynamic from the outset
@RevPancakes @eb so, in your framework, the hundreds of people who work and have worked making ActivityPub, Activity Streams 2.0, and related standards, who've spent decades making this network we're on, would just let the whole thing get steamrolled?
I don't think you know or appreciate who these people are and how hard they work and why.
Don't pretend to be the defender of open standards when you treat the people who make them this way. And stay out of my timeline.
oh, so, now it's over. There have been a couple of collective freakouts over the last few months about different implementations of AP. They're "scraping" (using the ActivityPub protocol to request data) or making "shadow profiles" (showing their users your info so the users can remote follow). I did a poll to see if that position was widespread; it clearly is not. I'm glad to see that so many people are aware of what an open standard means.
@cypherhippie some people have insisted that federated servers be made "opt in", despite the fact that at the protocol level the social connections on the fediverse are *always* opt in. Most people have the flag set to auto confirm them, though.
In my bubble there seems to be convergence towards this:
3 currents will continue to emerge and differentiate amongst themselves:
A) fully open, no limit, incl. cooperation with ad driven players. B) rejection of everything that does not adhere to most restrictive ‘privacy first’ position. C) it’s a matter of negotiation, and that negotiation needs to be as inclusive as we can reasonably have it.
IANAL, but anyone can as long as they comply with the terms of the W3C Community Final Specification Agreement (FSA). w3.org/community/about/process…
If they want to run a particular implementation, they might have to conform with other license terms as well. But they could always write their own implementation.
I think I like this poll. So, I think there is the "obvious" option but then there is the longer deliberation that's quite important/complicated, and not particularly unique to AP (or any other specification) re "allowed to". I'm thinking along the lines of serious security and privacy matters; misuse without oversight or regulations... not sure where/what the exact lines are or ought to be.
I mean.. should the military or terrorists be allowed to implement/use HTTP...?
So, I'm really glad that we all agree so strongly on this. I don't think anyone has to federate with *anyone* they don't want, but we think everyone gets a chance to open up to the fediverse. Thanks for this great response.
Gabriel Pettier
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan B🥥ehs
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan B🥥ehs
in reply to Evan B🥥ehs • • •CouncilsInExile
in reply to Evan B🥥ehs • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to CouncilsInExile • • •CouncilsInExile
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •@eb large capitalist organisations like facebook tend to dominate standards bodies since they have more time and resources to engage than hobbyists or small professional teams.
This means that their interests will dominate and their implementations will proliferate.
This logic is independent of the goodwill of individuals at fb.
We’ve seen this before e.g. web browser duopoly and DRM.
We need to avoid setting up that dynamic from the outset
Evan Prodromou
in reply to CouncilsInExile • • •@RevPancakes @eb so, in your framework, the hundreds of people who work and have worked making ActivityPub, Activity Streams 2.0, and related standards, who've spent decades making this network we're on, would just let the whole thing get steamrolled?
I don't think you know or appreciate who these people are and how hard they work and why.
Don't pretend to be the defender of open standards when you treat the people who make them this way. And stay out of my timeline.
Nathan A. Stine
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •John Maxwell
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Ian McKellar
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Paul Fuxjaeger
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Paul Fuxjaeger • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Chris Trottier likes this.
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Paul Fuxjaeger
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •yes, thanks a lot! My response was strong agree.
In my bubble there seems to be convergence towards this:
3 currents will continue to emerge and differentiate amongst themselves:
A) fully open, no limit, incl. cooperation with ad driven players.
B) rejection of everything that does not adhere to most restrictive ‘privacy first’ position.
C) it’s a matter of negotiation, and that negotiation needs to be as inclusive as we can reasonably have it.
I want to devote my efforts to current C)
The Gym Nerd
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •how can someone not agree to this? Everyone is allowed to implement AP protocol... That's not an option.
And AP (federated structure) is allowing everyone to decide with whom they want to interact with.
Steven D. Brewer 🏳️⚧️
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •IANAL, but anyone can as long as they comply with the terms of the W3C Community Final Specification Agreement (FSA). w3.org/community/about/process…
If they want to run a particular implementation, they might have to conform with other license terms as well. But they could always write their own implementation.
Sarven Capadisli
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I think I like this poll. So, I think there is the "obvious" option but then there is the longer deliberation that's quite important/complicated, and not particularly unique to AP (or any other specification) re "allowed to". I'm thinking along the lines of serious security and privacy matters; misuse without oversight or regulations... not sure where/what the exact lines are or ought to be.
I mean.. should the military or terrorists be allowed to implement/use HTTP...?
Jonathan Lamothe
in reply to Evan Prodromou • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •