@KevinMarks @strypey @cwebber

What would a partnership of indieweb and activitypub look like? Can they play nicely together? Or would they fight?

@bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber the main difference is that (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 (a 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. 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.

@neil @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber I could be wrong, but the indie.web always struck me as a very 'by developers, for developers' approach. Everything I've read about it, including all the stuff on their site, seems to be aimed at people who understand protocols and how to implement them.

@strypey @neil @bhaugen @KevinMarks I'm not really interested in "by developers, for developers", because my target is not "liberate developers", it is "liberate everyone"

@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). w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/AccountDi has some of this.

@KevinMarks @cwebber @strypey @neil

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?)

@bhaugen @cwebber @strypey @neil known.kevinmarks.com/2018/i-ca

It should be possible for you to subscribe to an indieweb site via atom and webpub, but mastodon wants a lot of webfinger wrangling to do that.

@KevinMarks @bhaugen @cwebber @neil isn't part of the AP spec (AFAIK). It's just something Mastodon (and Pleroma) bolt on, so people can continue to use the familiar user@domain.foo ID format, and (I assume) to maintain backwards compatibility with .

@strypey @KevinMarks @bhaugen @cwebber @neil

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,

@jgmac1106 @strypey @KevinMarks @cwebber @neil x

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?

@bhaugen @strypey @KevinMarks @cwebber @neil

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
decentralized = no single centre
So federated *is* decentralized. What you mean is 'distributed', or pure .

@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 @cwebber @neil yes, exactly - the point is that a single-user instance should be possible, as opposed to having to join an existing system.

@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.

@neil @strypey @jgmac1106 @KevinMarks @cwebber

I am in the same boat (participating in lotsa groups) and also want my personal place to work from.

@neil @strypey @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber

Yes my dream is the semi-private post where I can choose which networks of friends can see certain content.

Like if I had a list of groups in my h-card and only other people who also belonged to same group would see post.

@jgmac1106 @neil @strypey @bhaugen @KevinMarks Yes, I am working on that. You can already do it today, by addressing collections or groups, but the main challenge is retrieving the object later, *after* you were given access.

I'm working towards making that last part completely easy.

@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 w3.org/TR/capability-urls/

Here's a hint on how to get around that: groups.google.com/forum/#!topi but I need to make this thinking more coherent to everyone

@jgmac1106 @neil @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber this is already possible with , using . 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, and .

> my dream is the semi-private post where I can choose which networks of friends can see certain content.

has always allowed this. If only somebody outside the core team would come up with a way for D* instances to inter-operate with AP apps ...

@neil @bhaugen @KevinMarks

@strypey @neil @bhaugen @KevinMarks yeah i wonder if solution for me is a mix of personal websites and ActivityPub for private or group posting

@neil @jgmac1106 @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber
> I shouldn't need an account on social.coop and sunbeam.city

... and you don't. That's the whole point of open, federated protocols like and (and even the Diaspora variant of OStatus). The apps that use these are not monocultures (in the sense) and never have been. !groups exist in OStatus and in AP, but working implementations are still in progress.

> For me interest groups should be decoupled from infrastructure

semi-solves this problem, by allowing a group hosted by an instance like gup.pe to be followed and posted to by any user on an AP-compatible instance (in theory, I've only tested with Mastodon so far). See:

@jgmac1106 @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber

The problem that remains unsolved for now is that if gup.pe itself goes away, all the groups hosted on it stop working. But each member's instance would still have copies of all the posts since they joined.

@neil @jgmac1106 @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber

@strypey @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber @neil

Thanks for the clarification, much of this is very new to me.

If the person running an instance gets to decide the rules of the road and can kick people off at will how is that person not a "single centre"?

@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.

@strypey @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber @neil okay that makes clear sense. What is our collective benefit to adding a federated service layer on top of the web? 5hat is what I will explore next few weeks as I play

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!