@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 @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.

@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 @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 .

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

This Mastodon instance is provided gratis by the NZ Open Source Society for the benefit of everyone interested in their own freedom and sharing with others. Hosting is generously provided by Catalyst IT.