The TL;DR: ActivityPub is purposefully an incomplete protocol. Communities need to build additional specs on top of it.

New problem: how to collaborate on and discover these community specs.

@cj ActivityPub is the new standard being invented that doesn't help in this analogy

@ben Ah. I get the jist, but that's a pretty non-specific criticism. 927 gets thrown around a lot. Anything that's a protocol could be criticized this way, the question is what other protocols is ActivityPub redundant of. But that would've been more appropriate for SocialCG while they were standardizing it.

I'm not championing any effort that's meant to unify /replace a protocol, fwiw. Merely suggesting building on an existing protocol. So I don't find 927 too applicable here.

@cj defining a protocol in such a way that you need to define another protocol on top of it to do the thing the first protocol was supposed to do strikes me as "creating a solution and looking for a problem to assign it to".


@ben Did you read my blog post and refuse to accept my philosophy/viewpoint because the philosophy you have is precisely the one I call out and compare it to.

ActivityPub isn't meant to solve any specific domain problems. It just so happens to have a bad "extension" for the social media domain coupled and bundled with the original spec.

If you don't share this view, that's fine.

ยท ยท Tusky ยท 1 ยท 0 ยท 2

@cj I haven't read the post yet, just the TL;DR reply so far.

@ben OK, good to know. I was worried if I had fucked up my post and hadn't clearly communicated on this point. I'm not a great writer and I don't put myself out there often so I am a little extra jumpy. Sorry if it comes across as snappy!

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!