UI differences are a big factor in the success/failure of decentralised federation of diverse platforms and content
And this seems a good example: bridged #mastodon posts onto #BlueSky which has a lower character limit than Mastodon.
So, just like #lemmy posts on mastodon, you don't get the full content of the post (which ends with an abrupt ellipsis here) and have to take a link to the original platform.
However powerful the underlying protocols, this isn't far from screenshots.
Definitely, AP is not magic. But if even within one protocol round-tripping and full-fidelity is impossible or very difficult, that makes it only harder and less likely through a bridge.
Yea a complete protocol to protocol bridge seems far off for sure. But a platform to platform bridge seems to be working fine for the moment (masto-bsky), and that seems a reasonable expectation.
The fediverse won’t succeed at putting up a #Stackoverflow substitute and that’s a problem?
Just an impression: All the pieces seem to be there. But what’s required is a team, with devs, PMs and coordinators, dedicated to making a particular place in the #fediverse .
That’s resources and decently sized financial and organisational demands, especially to get a critical mass of users.
Is the fediverse up to that challenge? If not, is it an issue worth addressing?
Amen. Same problem here. But feel free to hit me up if you find someone who wants to do it. I wouldnt mind helping with design stuff since that meeds different skills than coding.
AFAICT, mastodon's decisions, which are arguably problematic (on which see: https://lemmy.ml/post/14973403) are literally trickling down to other platforms and infecting how they federate with each other as they dance around mastodon's quirks in different ways.
It seems like masto is ruining "the standard" with its gravity.
None of that matters if Mastodon doesnt implement these suggestions or standards. And from past experience its extremely unlikely that they will. Thats why I think its best to ignore what Mastodon does, its not our concern how they decide to render things.
That's kind of what I meant too, if there's a standardised and correct way to implement things, that's how projects should implement it instead of trying to do it the "Mastodon" way
"We Need To Rewild The Internet"
An absolutely excellent read (and great analogy) by @mariafarrell and @robin Probably the best piece I've read all year.
I often struggle to think of a term for "appearing messy from a distance is often, on a human scale, healthy actually." Comparing the social web to an ecosystem is exactly it.
I poked around in the (slightly verbose) documentation and stumbled onto this:
Servers should not re-use URIs, regardless of the mechanism by which resources are created. Certain specific cases exist where URIs may be reinstated when it identifies the same resource,
So I wonder if it has the same inbuilt limitation that IPFS has, which means you cannot just update the data you are sharing, without also having to create a whole new link (I know IPFS are trying to work around that, but have seen no decentralised solution yet).
I'll poke around some more!
Thanks for the link, I hadn't heard of them before.
Now this is interesting, I know about Tor ofc, with all problems surrounding it (exit nodes etc) but I guess an onion website could be made well protected and shared & updated. You have to host it yourself though I guess.
Freenet, gotta dig down and see how it works under the surface, it looks very promising but it's kind of complex and I haven't yet figured out if it is all benevolent sharing for example and what happend if some random node sharing your stuff goes offline.
Very interesting!
I think (I'll dig more to see if it stands) my advantage would be the redundancy (so the data always stays up and is hard to take down), the no need of benevolent nodes, and potentially the ease if use.
@BeAware@julian@maegul Firefish is essentially on a terminal stage, being barely kept alive just for the sake of it existing, no real changes/features… but I’m kinda curious what happened previously. I spent almost two 2 years (okay, only 1 year and something…) out of the Fediverse and came back to find a lot of people vanished, including “Calc”.
I'm aware ... I'm talking about the "moment" that happened last year where some hype grew around it. Whatever survives now is clearly a distinct project IMO.
@halm Diaspora only federates with Friendica (because the latter has diaspora protocol support). Friendica doesn't have its "own protocol", it uses ActivityPub with its own proprietary extensions IIRC.
Didn't expect the mastodon CVE report/account would kinda end up being about platform diversity on the fediverse (TLDR: only mastodon really had the problem, which was huge)
> a protocol needs to achieve two things: it needs to prevent the accumulation of power imbalances between parties … and it needs to make it easy for users to cooperate in building the the rules they want for how the protocol's operation affects them … the success of decentralisation and … of a democratic digital world rides not only on liberation but also on organising.
@poVoq Agreed. It got me thinking. But feels almost entirely ideological, conflating social media (e.g. Twitter, Reddit) with “the digital world”.
Saying git is a “failed attempt at decentralisation” just because GitHub is popular misses that GitHub is less critical infrastructure than it would be if we only had CVS or Subversion.
I’m encouraged by incremental, practical decentralisation efforts outside of social media. It’s slow, kinda boring but it’s real and happening today.
Yea this is the essence of the idea. Strip down the interop requirements as much as possible, relying on existing tech as much as possible, and allow software and norms to solve all the other problems, where, TBF, it seems that software is doing all the heavy lifting in the fediverse anyway, but also has to handle federation and the protocol.
As more and more instances are providing multiple services under the same management, we need a term to talk about this type of arrangement. A Fediverse Galaxy is a collection of federated software that is provided by the same admin or collective.