dadifroggie ,
@dadifroggie@infosec.town avatar

A rant about social protocols
Introduction
Recently, I read an article that talked about that someone, tried to do a new platform called “Content Nation”. This is a German platform that allows people to write content (to be honest, I don’t really know what it does.) and publish it. And recently, the creators tried to implement the ActivityPub protocol. They did so by using the official documentation provided by @w3c.
The problem was that the last time the official documentation was updated, was in 23 January 2018. So, this means that a lot of new standards that other platforms like Mastodon, Misskey, etc... use are not written in there. But this isn’t the fault of the service developers, this is the fault of the W3C that hasn’t been an update to the protocol officially to support the new standards in the industry such as Webfinger, SharedInbox, Privacy Scopes, and Opt-Out for Search…
The thing, is that this led to a lot of people thinking that this site was some kind of scraper and started making the crawler crash or, even worse, someone tried to load CP inside the platform.
BlueSky
Recently, BlueSky opened its AT protocol for everyone to use and federate, due to this, there has been a bit of a discussion inside these platforms. This made me think, why did BlueSky feel the necessity to make another protocol? If there is one already, why do we need another one that competes, wasn’t the objective of protocols to allow interoperability?
So, I did a bit of digging and I found two things. The first one is that they wanted so solve a few things that AP does not support officially (here are the main points, not all of them):

Account portability. A person’s online identity should not be owned by corporations with no accountability to their users. With the AT Protocol, you can move your account from one provider to another without losing any of your data or social graph.
Algorithmic choice. Algorithms dictate what we see and who we can reach. We must have control over our algorithms if we're going to trust in our online spaces. The AT Protocol includes an open algorithms mode so users have more control over their experience.

A lot of these problems are already present on ActivityPub for a long time. The account portability of ActivityPub let’s say it’s not intuitive. You have to do a lot of things and even then, there are some things like the posts that you make or the favourites that don’t transfer (in the case of favourites you need to transfer them manually, the same for blocks and mutes).
Also, right now 99% if not all software that uses ActivityPub, does not have an algorithm that orders content for you to see, but shows you everything in chronological order (I don’t know if its intentional or if it’s a limit of AP) and the only thing you have to discover topics is trough hashtags that maybe someone forgot to tag.
Furthermore, not to mention that on ActivityPub, you are at the mercy of the server moderators, so this means that if you know someone that is on an instance that is blocked by yours, you won’t be able to talk to them unless you change the instance, which in a way it’s not very decentralized.
The other protocols
By doing research, I realized that there are a lot of other protocols (for example Nostr) that have its own implementation of things maybe there are some that are bridged and other not.
Such protocols have different features, for example Nostr allows you to suggest content edit to other people’s posts, move your content easily, etc.
How can we solve this?
First, we have to know why all these other companies make their own. I must say, that most of them probably do because AP does not allow customization of posts or the adding of new features for everyone and the fact that it’s not been updated for 6 whole years makes matters worse.
What the developers want, is a protocol that lets them create wherever they want and add everything the want, for example the edit thing that I said the Nostr supports, the only way to add it to AP, would be or only on your software or find another software that is willing to implement that feature, the rest of the market is left behind as well as the users that depending on what it is, they don’t understand.
My solution to this problem would be to add some kind of per user plugin system directly to the AP that allows for devs to implement add-ons that do with the JSON strings that add buttons or scripts at least to send and receive data. As well as to add some kind of CSS support for the posts and profiles. Of course, the point of these is that if you make a platform, and you are the only one using these characteristics, well… but in case that everybody wants to use it and everybody makes their own plugins it would be chaos.
For this, the solution I proposed would be like something you add while the W3C updates the protocol to support a very popular feature.

smallcircles ,
@smallcircles@social.coop avatar

@dadifroggie @w3c

Focusing solely on this part of your post:

> this is the fault of the W3C that hasn’t been an update to the protocol officially to support the new standards.

There is no "THE" that maintains or is responsible for evolving the related specs. There's the , a community group, with representatives (read: volunteers) from the same grassroots movement that is engaged with the , i.e. fedizens.

The standard is 'ours', of the people until now.

steve ,
@steve@social.technoetic.com avatar

@smallcircles @dadifroggie @w3c The W3C effectively owns ActivityPub. If one tries to make a grassroots change to the Recommendation, they will learn that immediately. My understanding is that even the W3C Social CG can’t make changes. A new W3C working group must be created or rechartered to do that.

hrefna ,
@hrefna@hachyderm.io avatar

@steve

That matches my understanding exactly.

The w3c owns AP as a spec. Not the SWICG, who is extremely limited in what they can do, and the only way to make true changes to the spec is through the chartering of another working group… which again the w3c controls the process for and everything down to how that group can make recommendations.

Individual implementations have made diverging choices, and there's no clear way to get these pushed up to AP.

@smallcircles @dadifroggie @w3c

hrefna ,
@hrefna@hachyderm.io avatar

@steve

One can make the argument that AP is essentially rudderless here because of the way that the w3c works and I won't disagree, but in terms of responsibility and ownership, those fall squarely at the feet of the w3c.

@smallcircles @dadifroggie @w3c

smallcircles ,
@smallcircles@social.coop avatar

@hrefna @steve @dadifroggie @w3c

Well, technically yes. Similarish to how notary 'owns' the contract of my home's mortgage loan as a custodian, and I can't just make changes to that.

I'm responsible to make my home livable, keep it tidy. I can refurbish and add value to it. And if I plan well I can convince my bank & notary to adjust my contract, if I stick to the process for that.

Back to W3C. AP is unique as until now there weren't corporate entities driving the standard to its Rec. status.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines