@parastat Hi, your reasoning behind creating a new project sounds valid. What gives me a bit of a headache is that you plan to implement a homegrown completely new protocol.
First of all: Are you aware of all the efforts of making #ActivityPub itself more safe for marginalised folks by e.g. adding consent control via object capabilities? This really deserves some support to make it happen.
Also your intro blog posts reads a bit like parastat instances can "leach" posts from AP instances, but ->

@parastat won't publish stuff as AP. So some clarification on whether AP support is one way or both would be welcome.

When it comes to inventing your own protocol: I understand that inventing your own protocol is compelling at first as it allows you to roll fast and don't make compromises with other stakeholders.
But making compromises can actually be valuable, because these compromises are the result of communication among different stakeholders when designing a solution that tries to suit ->

Show thread

@parastat the many and not just the single designer behind closed doors.
And while you might not care at all about certain concerns of others and their use cases, there certainly are perspectives brought up by others that you would have never ever thought of, but are important for you as well.

So while I'm looking forward to your approaches, I seriously ask you to reconsider the proprietary protocol thing and come back to the W3C SocialCG.

See you at #OffDEM/ #FOSDEM maybe?

Show thread
Follow

@schmittlauch There will be one of us at fosdem, so maybe not a rounded representation of the whole project/team.

On AP, we probably plan to do both communication on a subset of the feature. It is not written yet, so I cannot really tell you more than that.

Compromise are usually good, nothing fits every use case right.
We might just not share the same ones to the w3c working groups on social stuff.

I'm not sure where you get the idea of proprietary protocol, it wont be proprietary

@parastat
> Compromise are usually good, nothing fits every use case right.
We might just not share the same ones to the w3c working groups on social stuff.

I mostly wanted to know whether you're aware of the attempts of adding OCAP security to ActivityPub and, if yes, why this doesn't suit your needs.
If we then cannot agree an anything that's a pity, but rolling your own protocol is fine then. Just want to make sure you're not doing a "not invented here" approach due to a lack of knowledge.

@parastat
I've been around in the Fediverse since early Diaspora* times, so I'm just alway a bit cautious when people announce their own brand new protocol only supported by a single software. This often did not end well.

@schmittlauch
OCAP is there to fix ActivityPub problems, but doesn't change AP fundamentally.

Maybe there are voices that never make it to the W3C.
Maybe design by committee is not the only way we should build the fedi.
We think that there is power in diversity.

People rolled their own protocol before, the fediverse has quite a few: Dispora, ActivityPub, OStatus, Zot, DFRN already (handy picture attached).

I'd argue Mastodon has been and is a success despite underlying protocol(s).

@schmittlauch @parastat

> I mostly wanted to know whether you're aware of the attempts of adding OCAP security to ActivityPub

This is interesting. Do you have a good pointer for that?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Octodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!