@bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber the main difference is that #IndieWeb (as I understand it) is designed around the idea of everyone having a self-hosted homepage, which implements a bunch of simple-as-possible protocols, allowing those homepages to form a social network. Obviously quite different from the assumptions behind AP (a federation of servers, each with one or more users, each with a web or native client) or #SSB (a #P2P network of native clients that may have intermittent net access)
@strypey @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber Not an expert but I don't think it's *necessarily* (although very common) about being self-hosted, it's about owning your identity and your data. e.g. https://micro.blog provides hosted services that adhere to indieweb protocols (and principles).
In some ways its closer to Hubzilla than Mastodon, IMO.
The reason I mention that (and hope I'm correct in saying so) is that I think it's vital that indieweb does not expect everyone will self-host.
@cwebber @strypey @neil @bhaugen I don't think we disagree about goals, but about methods to some extent. Indieweb was founded after frustration with large complex federation efforts aimed at big companies, and refocusing on web-centric models that are small and simple to implement.
OStatus has a lot of these complexities included (webfinger and salmon being the most egregious). https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/AccountDiscovery has some of this.
Kevin, can you federate with all of the people in this message from an indie.web place-to-stand?
If not, what would it take to be able to do that?
Or conversely, what would it take for eg a one-person ActivityPub (which I got) to be able to federate with you communing from an indie.web place?
(Was that all clear?)
I wonder if a federated system would ever beat out a decentralized vision. Mastodon instances come and go and data could be, will be, lost forever, somebody else besides you gets to decide the rules of the road.
Open systems can have closed leadership that does not gel well with the idea of putting users in control of their data,
Greg, I am missing something.
What's the diff in your mind between decentralized and federated? And what closed leadership do you have in mind in each case?
For example, if we do personal activitypubs (which we are doing) and then we federate them, is that decentralized or federated?
Or are you considering federation to mean only large sites with lots of members which federate with other large sites with lots of members?
Federated=open protocols allowing different instances to talk but still requires some central server, an admin and a bunch of users to call that admin a fascist nazi whenever they make a small change.
Decentralized=open protocols all run on individual instances with no concentrated power or loss of data if someone shuts down server
@jgmac1106 @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber @neil the reality is, unless you engineer a protocol to be only capable of supporting single-user apps (if that's even possible), a decentralized network will have a mix of multi-user and single-user instances. It's up to each user to decide which to use. Ideally, at some point, individuals accounts will become totally portable between instances. This is already possible with Hubzilla (using Zot protocol).
@strypey @jgmac1106 @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber Yes I think Hubzilla has done it nicely. With both nomadic identity, and also simply the groups idea (not original to Hubzilla ofc). For me interest groups should be decoupled from infrastructure. I'm interested in both coops and solarpunk, but I shouldn't need an account on social.coop and sunbeam.city to get the goodness of both. I want to just exist as myself, but be part of both groups. Tags don't cut it.
@strypey @jgmac1106 @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber I find indieweb and Hubzilla close in spirit. You have one identity, you can self-host yourself or you can exist on a hosted service. You can move around if you want. Your hosting choice does not determine who you follow or what groups you are most closely associated with. I've not really seen a way in indieweb yet to subscribe to an existing interest group. Hubzilla is v. cool but I like indieweb plurarity of implementations.
@jgmac1106 @neil @strypey @bhaugen @KevinMarks One route is Capability URLs, for all posts but there is a problem with them which is that contemporary browsers and URLs leak them everywhere https://www.w3.org/TR/capability-urls/
Here's a hint on how to get around that: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/cap-talk/TRsGcg80Z0g but I need to make this thinking more coherent to everyone
@jgmac1106 @neil @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber this is already possible with #Hubzilla, using #Zot. Your private posts and shared media stay on the server(s) you host your channel(s) on, and you can decide which other Hubzilla users to share them with. Once Hubzilla is upgraded to Zot/6, it will also federate with two newer Zot apps, #Osada and #Zap.
... and you don't. That's the whole point of open, federated protocols like #OStatus and #ActivityPub (and even the Diaspora variant of OStatus). The apps that use these are not monocultures (in the #IndieWeb sense) and never have been. !groups exist in OStatus and in AP, but working implementations are still in progress.
@jgmac1106 @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber @neil they are the single centre of that instance. But they are not the centre of the *network*. A user can choose whether or not to use their instance, or another one, or self-host. If they are user Hubzilla, that can clone their channels across 2 or more instances (or 'hubs'), which may or may not include one they self-host. It could include one they run on their laptop, which syncs with its clones whenever they go online.
Look at the issues social.coop had a few weeks ago that lead to a mass exodus of users and a call from admins to "close off new members to ensure we adhere to open principles." (paraphase)
I see that as a risk in federated system where power gets concentrated in the hands of a few
@jgmac1106 this blog piece and its comment thread has some useful commentary on the various ideas about what 'decentralized' can mean:
@strypey Dietrich is awesome. I have been playing with Dat and beaker browser.
Though my definition of decentralized would include a bunch folks interacting from their own websites and readers without ever touching another service
@jgmac1106 as I said in my comment on that article, the word "decentralized" has two standard definitions, one from politics, from from networking, and neither of them are the one you are proposing. It's fine to have your own non-standard definition, but if you don't give your personal definition the fist time you use the word in a conversation, don't be surprised if it confuses people ;)
@strypey and as I said I am hear to learn all the definitions so thanks for the patience and explanations
@strypey I say it with love. I am a long time Mozilla contributor... But turning my attention to an open source project with no bosses or boards has been heavenly
@jgmac1106 what project are you working on now?
@jgmac1106 most people think of the net as decentralized, which it is. But although TCP/IP was designed to allow a #P2P mesh network, most of us still connect via an ISP. So the ISPs form a #P2P mesh, but when you look at the net as a whole, including the ISPs' customers, it's a federated network. But it would only be centralized if all ISPs has to connect to a single, central choke point, instead of forming a #P2P mesh with each other.
@strypey that being said I don't trust any product from Mozilla beyond Firefox. They all eventually get shut down by some higher up, when soft money gets cut off, or when the one person stewarding the project moves on