Re: Federation protocols

On Jun 12, 2013 2:06 AM, "Michał &apos;rysiek&apos; Woźniak" <
rysiek@fwioo.pl> wrote:
>
> Dnia wtorek, 11 czerwca 2013 o 17:42:36 Nick Jennings napisał(a):
>
> > > > but hell, on twitter you can't even send messages to someone who
isn't
> > > > following you.
> > >
> > > I call bull.
> > > "Dear @user_not_following_me, how's the weather?"
> >
> > The solution to sending private messages is sending them publicly.
Problem
> > solved.
> > Write up the draft.
>
> Could I suggest, instead, to use the phrase "private mesages" whenever
you're
> talking about, you know, *private* messages? That would save us this
round-
> trip. For example.
>

On existing social platforms, and open protocols like Activity Streams,

A Message is the verb to describe text sent between two or more parties in
private-ish context

A Post is the verb to describe public text between two or more parties

I thought you'd understand what I meant by message, especially in the
context of my sentence (re: twitter).

> > > > That's what I mean about what do we mean about federation :)
> > >
> > > And I stand by my "we need to find ways to interoperate, or we will
die
> > > in the
> > > wilderness between walled gardens".
> > >
> > > Look at the whole PRISM debate right now! People are waking up, and
are
> > > enraged, and are looking for alternatives. And there is no alternative
> > > there.
> > > The more a user looks at libre social networking, the more they get
the
> > > feeling that all there is is infighting and bickering about which of
the
> > > several incompatible social networks to use.
> > >
> > > This is absurd. This is something we *have* to do something about.
> > > Instead of
> > > looking for a myriad of reasons not to.
> >
> > I don't want to continue to hash out protocol semantics. There are many
> > different people with many different perspectives and ideas. Not
everyone
> > agrees with your ideas but I'm sure a lot of people do as well. In the
end,
> > though, you can talk about it until you're blue in the face and we'll
still
> > be right where we are.
>
> Yeah, I am starting to see that. That's a bit sad, but hey -- at least I
> tried.
>
> I still believe it would be possible to hash out a protocol that would at
> least provide interoperability. What I take from this whole thread is that
> surprisingly many of us here prefer looking for reasons not to do that or
> problems that arise, instead of finding ways to do proceed.
>

Don't you think that's jumping to a rather defeatist conclusion?

Just because we have different perspectives, that doesn't mean there aren't
many of us working very hard to bring our ideas to fruition.

Sure, there are always people who just talk, complain about the problems
with projects, and never write any code, but all you can do is to avoid
being one of them yourself :)

> That's a very sad observation and a very sad statement on libre social
> networking. For me personally it strongly suggests libre social
networking is
> not going to gain any serious traction in foreseeable future.
>

Maybe not in the way you expect it to.

Cheers,
Nick