I have specifically qualified my statement to cross-posts that include the "RT" text and all sorts of broken references to avoid "not all cross-posts" responses, but I still got them. Okay then.
Unsurprisingly, I indeed believe that Mastodon is better than Twitter, and prefer seeing posts created here over posts created somewhere else.
I also think that the ability to cross-post from Twitter works against Mastodon adoption.
@gargron ... at it from another point of view: Many of us have been blaming Facebook and Twitter to be "walled gardens" and "data silos" - for pretty good reasons as it's hardly possible to communicate with users "inside" if you're "outside". Shouldn't we do better and rather try to eliminate "inside" and "outside" altogether? 😉
you can't.. since those outside refuse the federation. it's not #mastodon fault, design or architecture. those making it impossible to talk to wherever your friends are, are the closed gardens, not the fediverse.
what could Mastodon do more than allowing the remapping of the "public square" on the open web fediverse?
it's up to other closed gardens to open the gates.
@z428 @Gargron I disagree on the #activitypub bit, that's the same of saying : we should not use all the same email protocol cos it will give pop3/imap a monopoly on email delivery. Protocols are what makes the web inter-operable, hence #indieweb & fediverse could comment on each others posts simply by adopting the protocol; anyone is free to make a new interface for it as long as it abide to the protocol, that's why the web still works right ?
@benborges Difficult. I tend to agree but then again, unlike e-mail or HTTP (where essentially the same protocols have been in use for like three decades), open social networks have been pretty much about re-implementing similar ideas in different, incompatible protocols ever since. That's why, right now, Diaspora, the fediverse, Movim, .... seem like "open silos" that hardly play together.
@z428 @Gargron well some protocol will win over the others right ? in theory the one that brings most features, security, stability and open source..I think at some point it will be impossible for Diaspora & others to avoid it much longer..the benefits of joining the fediverse will outpace technological concept purity and I think in this case it can't hurt the ecosystem...
@benborges Again, I don't disagree, but just imagine the time same would have happened with e-mail or web. 😉 Not arguing against evolution in protocols, but so far pretty often it feels just like people implement breaking protocols while considering compatibility to other existing similar protocols someone elses problem.
@z428 @Gargron I guess the big difference with #activitypub is 1) it comes from a W3C working group that improved the specs basing itself on the state of previous similar protocol (statusnet, OStatus) 2) Diaspora founder seems to like it : https://medium.com/we-distribute/a-quick-guide-to-the-free-network-c069309f334 maybe the future is going to bring new shiny good news on this aspect, I think there is high chance to see this happening, it will have its own network effect
@z428 diaspora, movim, and activitypub also deal with different use cases, though!
- movim is an extension of xmpp status/mood, and is intended to build on personal messaging with your contacts.
- diaspora has never focused on compatibility, and has doggedly stuck to their own protocol because their entire sharing model is reversed; it's not a follower model.
- activitypub is a web technology meant to link together disparate streams of data
@trwnh These however seem more like different technical approaches. I doubt the actual *use cases* (as in what end users do with the system) really differ between these networks. From that point of view, in example mastodon and peertube seem way more different in use case and target group than mastodon and movim ...?
@z428 disagree. mastodon and peertube are both fundamentally web sites, passing web documents around. a profile on a web site is a 1-many service. movim is... not that.
if you simplify the use case to "communication" then you end up ignoring the intricacies of how people actually use each system. for example, it is possible to implement a chat service entirely within activitypub, but *should* you? that's a lot of overhead for transient use cases. @benborges @Gargron
@trwnh For what I see, mastodon is more of a (micro)blogging platform focussed on smaller text messages whereas peertube is an environment for hosting video clips. Movim is closer to Facebook or Diaspora (longer posts, embedded online chat). That's the level of abstraction I had in mind, even tough on a "lower" level I agree with you.
@z428 Even on a higher level, I wouldn't say that IRC and XMPP serve the same use case at all. You wouldn't join a chat room and expect private communication, in the same way that you wouldn't expect private communication on a publishing network. In that sense, Peertube and Mastodon both serve a "publishing documents to a stream" use case.
@trwnh Maybe it's a filter bubble issue; at least in my environment, real "end users" don't even think about making a distinction between "communication" and "publishing" network, same as (in Facebook, in example), borders between posting articles, commenting articles, forwarding articles as private messages and entirely message-driven communication are fuzzy if existent at all. From that point of view, it seems of no real importance whether there's something like ...
@trwnh ... Movim (basically a communication / chat system with publishing features bolted on top) or Diaspora (a publishing system with messaging and chat added to the mix) or something like Mastodon (which might be in between somewhere). It won't matter, either, whether chat or publishing is first, whether chat is activitypub or XMPP or anything else. That's just *how* use cases are implemented, not *what* use cases are about.
@z428 My point is less about the "how"/"why" and moreso that the protocol diversity is a direct result of use-case diversity. The Diaspora protocol was built with reverse-sharing in mind. Movim is an extension of a protocol that was built with 1-1 chatting in mind. IRC was built with live rooms in mind. ActivityPub was built to be a very general protocol for sharing data between websites. The stuff that gets built on top of those protocols can't really be built on just one protocol.
@z428 So it's not about what came first or which was bolted onto which, but rather, which use cases are naturally supported? Note that ActivityPub is currently having issues with identity management and with encryption schemes, because it was built for web servers; you can consider ActivityPub a poor base for a 1-1 chat system.
Facebook is a bad example because it's the Everything Network. It bolts together disparate experiences like chatting and posting -- and it still used XMPP for chat.
@trwnh Yes, but actually the "Everything Network" is exactly my point and (as far as I see things here) pretty much what mere end users expect, assuming the "all-in" approach makes for a rather seamless experience. That's why, in example, I see there should be tight collaboration between Movim / XMPP people and AP folks (because there might be synergies in the publishing fields, and XMPP definitely can manage the 1-1 or conference chat system). Right now, there are too many technical ...
@trwnh ... borders and apparently too few approaches to actually unify these things to come up with something that, to an end user, provides an experience on par with or even better than Facebook and *still* is less "silo" and less privacy-invading.
@z428 Even if you simplify everything and say "OK, no redundant protocols", you still end up with stuff that can't be done entirely within any one protocol, and you still end up with overlaps. SMTP and XMPP can both coexist because emailing and chatting are sufficiently different use cases despite being fundamentally the exact same (sharing text with attachments to your contacts). Should SMTP be deprecated, and should email servers implement XMPP instead?
@trwnh Honest answer? I don't really care. What I see, right now, is that more and more people give up on both e-mail and all "other" chat solutions, especially for the day-to-day internal communication, and rely upon platforms such as Slack that seem to bring "best of both worlds" and even have a fully searchable "eternal archive". For many use cases, something like Slack or XMPP with a "transparent bridge" to include external contacts via then-legacy protocols (like SMTP) might be ...
@trwnh ... a perfectly fine choice. I don't per se want to argue for or against any particular protocol, but what I see in day-to-day life (Slack, Google Apps for Business, Apple Cloud...) is that more and more users actually don't care much about protocols and want an integrated solution instead, just like web-based GMail that also includes live chat and even video conferencing at a fingertip in a homogenous UI. If we need different protocols for that - fine. But at times I wonder ...
@trwnh ... whether the "open community" lacks sort of a vision to get all these things together in a homogenous, seamless, structured way without building yet another silo.
@z428 Now we're talking about the app level and not the protocol level. The GMail webapp still uses multiple protocols; it's more akin to having a GTalk pane next to your GMail pane. Likewise, you can build an email client that had XMPP chat embedded in the side (e.g. Thunderbird, Evolution, eM Client, and so on).
I wouldn't call either part of that an "open silo". Even then, the only "silo" aspect is in incompatible data representations -- you can still build a converter or bridge as you said.
@z428 With respect to open social networks, you'd still have to define what you mean by "social network". Technically, email is a social network. Technically, so are phone networks. And so is the postal service. And so is meeting IRL. The contexts are not all the same though, are they?
@z428 I suspect that part of what ails you is the lack of consistent and shared identity between the disparate use cases, and this is in fact what Facebook provides that all these so-called "open silos" don't: a consistent profile that people can connect to.
Would you have less of an issue if you could use the same profile/account on Mastodon, Movim, and Diaspora?
@trwnh Well yes, this and if there was a seamless integration of users, content, comments, ... between these platforms. Ideally, I would like to be able to, on Movim or Diaspora, follow users and comment on posts from the fediverse without either me or them seeing which network I initially came from.
@trwnh I thought to be on what you call "app level" already all the time - as,the point of interface for end users to realize their use cases. That's what I mean, and that's where I see protocol choices as a technical detail and integration as way more important (and incompatibility way more difficult to handle).
@z428 The incompatibility stems not just from the protocol, but also from the use case. How do you handle following people inside a chat app? Do their posts get translated into direct chats with you, or do you simply not receive their posts? Do their posts get set as a chat status and then get overwritten by the latest post? There are too many questions and no one way to answer them all. The metaphors aren't the same.
@z428 We can, of course, write as many bridges as we'd like, or even make our app multi-protocol, but that's more an issue of resource allocation and actually doing all that work. It will never be transparent and seamless as long as there are different metaphors. Those metaphors are the seams between networks that serve different use cases.
@trwnh Just out of curiosity: Have you ever used Movim and seen what it is capable of doing? It is by no means just a chat app. 😉 There is a chat component of course but the part of Movim that handles XMPP PubSub would translate 1:1 to mastodon or Diaspora.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!