Twitter / Bluesky
I don't know either. I mean the things these specifications try to solve I'm behind. But I'd rather wait until something rolls out of all these efforts that looks like it sound, broadly accepted, and finds widespread adoption.
Maybe @rhiaro could shine more light on the direction all this is going?
re: Twitter / Bluesky
@sl007 @rhiaro @humanetech @nicol “we can sign content by the user's key” – I don’t like the sound of that at all. So they’re going to hold the private keys. (Of course.) I mean, this is likely going to be the worst possible right-libertarian and corporate implementation of such a thing given who’s behind it. Not sure why we even still give billionaires the benefit of the doubt. No billionaire or trillion-dollar corporation is your friend.
> Twitter's funding of Bluesky is not subject to any conditions except one: that Bluesky is to research and develop technologies that enable open and decentralized public conversation.
Which says nothing. May just be the angel funding of Jack, with what he had in his wallet at the time of the meeting. Intending to pounce later, once the big VC is on board.
Wow wow, you keep tagging me, ha ha. I am critical in all toots about this whole shebang. Think the others there just as much :D
@humanetech (and view replies like a group conversation. It’s not that I’m tagging you. I’m just not untagging you.) :)
@aral and even if they were 100% independent I wouldn't want them to adopt AP, just for the attention that would raise in the corporate world.
I said a bunch of times: "Fediverse is managing to get interesting.. for exploitation. Yet not getting stronger to withstand a corporate onslaught".
@humanetech Email was federated. Then gmail happened.
I’m clearly not sick of saying it yet (for some reason) but we need systems that cannot be captured and enclosed. Where economies of scale don’t make sense. And those are systems where we don’t have servers of 1-1,000,000 but servers of 1 (which are just always-on relay nodes in an otherwise peer to peer network). That’s the small web vision. And we desperately need it to exist. (Well, I do, at least.)
@aral @humanetech Devising systems which cannot be enclosed is probably not possible - rather like having systems with perfect security - but we can write systems in a manner that it is not aligned with BigTech business models and goals. They would then need to do a very large amount of work to extract value from the commons.
A stealing from the commons scenario might be that they take your small tech and host a billion of them in the cloud, calling it "the Google small tech cloud", or similar, and log everything for metadata.
My intuition is that it's more likely to achieve a healthy outcome for participants to build a planet-scale federation from 10,000 million account instances than to build it from single account instances. (I'm new to #fediverse not federation FWIW.) ❤️ 💔
Then again the fact anyone can run a single account instance right now is pretty cool.
For me, the one thing that really makes gmail practically indispensable is that it handles the spam filtering very well.
Keeping spam filters up to date and effective on a personal email client or server was an arms race, and a real chore.
I hardly get any truly legit email now. It's mostly just "the interesting junk mail" versus the "the annoying junk mail", but I feel like I need a 1st-contact email, still.
@aral @humanetech True - but regarding Email itself - spam also happened and the consequence of that is that it's really hard to self-host an e-mail server today because IP addresses are blocked for anti-spam reason on the ISP level. That's why I believe peer-to-peer has a better future for home-servers.
A few days ago I was asking for something very related: as we have personal or family domains in email, I'd like to have the same domain identity for the fediverse.
So what is a simple way to do that? Do we need a personal Mastodon (or any fedi service) small server based on our own domain?
If that is the case, which ones are light enough for a handful of users in a shared server?
This may be very useful to advance your vision... (along with groups in Mastodon).
@humanetech @liaizon @sl007 @rhiaro @nicol I’ll tell you what they’re going to do: They’re going to integrate some sort of cryptocurrency into it. And likely tie your actual identity to it. Basically, I don’t intend to wait and find out and neither should you. Keep working on alternatives. Don’t let this make you complacent.
I believe they received startup funding from Twitter. I chatted with Golda Velez and she wanted to stress they were separate.
But yes, no reason for fediverse devs to stop what they're doing. Pull whatever seems valuable and discard the rest seems reasonable.
If they are “independent”, they would probably say at least where the millions come from.
On the other hand I had shared the criticisms against Musk of the team like the rabble thread on socialhub or Graeber pieces from twitter or even Golda Velez https://github.com/blueskyCommunity/aozora/blob/main/TOPICS/meta/2020_03_15_why_bluesky.md
But I can't trust without transparency.
I only believe, what I see.
If they are “independent”, fine.
We are expecting their questions on socialhub and we are expecting them at the meeting next Tuesday.
Usually we speak about proposals. Together.
re: Twitter / Bluesky
AFAICS that bit re: key ownership isn't going to be true. They're leveraging a lot of local device work (keeping keys and content on local devices) to handle this device authentication, a bit like Secure Scuttlebutt.
If anything, it'd be a looser implementation of how key signing of messages work in ActivityPub.
This is my personal Mastodon.