Re: A native internet protocol for social media

ne 16. 4. 2023 v 23:48 odesílatel Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> napsal:

> Melvin wrote:
>
>> The challenge lies in creating a protocol that is interoperable,
>> scalable, and allows users to have full ownership of their conversations.
>
> It seems to me that we've previously developed architectural patterns that
> address this need, at least we did for blogging. The key for blogging was
> to use PubSubHubbub, now W3C WebSub <https://www.w3.org/TR/websub/>, as a
> centralized means for accessing decentralized blog resources. The
> authoritative source for a blog entry is the blog, or feed, to which it is
> initially published, however, a blog entry can be accessed by many
> subscribers, using WebSub's publish & subscribe protocol, without actually
> accessing its home feed. WebSub allows blogs to be maintained without
> subjecting potentially small blog hosts to the excessive content polling
> and crawling that scales as the community of blog readers grows. A similar
> architecture, which supports decentralized publishing but more centralized,
> or federated distribution, could be one way to achieve a useful compromise
> between content ownership and scalability.
>
> A variant of WebSub, designed to provide publish/subscribe
> for ActivityStreams, including ActivityPub, could be defined and
> implemented. Would such a system address the balance you seek?
>

Pub/Sub is indeed a valuable technology. However, in today's context, one
might consider utilizing websockets to some extent as an alternative. A
solution resembling an open Firebase, which is in harmony with web
architecture, could prove to be quite beneficial.


>
> bob wyman
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 2:25 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> pá 14. 4. 2023 v 15:08 odesílatel Jacky Alcine <yo@jacky.wtf> napsal:
>>
>>> Agreed. And I don't see any sort of online platform being safe if it
>>> removes things like moderation and increases the proliferation of digital
>>> capitalism through cryptocurrency - both of which are nonconductive to a
>>> safe online Web.
>>>
>>> Dorsey endorsed the current owner of Twitter - look where that went. I
>>> do not have or put a lot of stock into things that can exalt those who fund
>>> for the sake of it.
>>>
>>> It also goes without saying that making a new Internet protocol is going
>>> to less to make change than working with expanding current systems to be
>>> more interoperable.
>>>
>>
>> In Tim Berners-Lee's book, "Weaving the Web," he posits that the Web is
>> more of a social invention than a technical one. The challenge lies in
>> creating a protocol that is interoperable, scalable, and allows users to
>> have full ownership of their conversations.
>>
>> P2P systems offer a high level of ownership, but they struggle with
>> scalability, particularly when it comes to navigating firewalls. On the
>> other hand, centralized or federated systems provide good scalability, but
>> compromise on user data ownership. In these systems, users share ownership
>> with the website owner, who may potentially impersonate them or monitor
>> their activities without their knowledge.
>>
>> A native internet protocol designed specifically for social purposes
>> would empower users to maintain ownership of their data while also being
>> capable of scaling to billions of users.
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023, at 04:04, Marcus Rohrmoser wrote:
>>> > @hellekin, I couldn't agree more.
>>> >
>>> > Celebrities throwing cash won't make a respectful, vibrant community.
>>> > The fediverse shouldn't become another centricash. It thrives on broad
>>> > participation, sovereign operation and mutual respect among peers.
>>> >
>>> > Individual funding surely helps (I myself am running on an nlnet grant
>>> > right now) but shouldn't be mission-critical to the fediverse as a
>>> > whole.
>>> >
>>> > The fediverse must become much more inclusive to be noteworthy –
>>> > currently we still have an unsurmountable divide of operators and
>>> users.
>>> > Brittle, bloaty, enterpriish standards & implementations manifest that
>>> > divide. That must be overcome and evolved into participants.
>>> >
>>> > There's not much sense in discussing means without having clearly
>>> stated
>>> > the ends.
>>> >
>>> > Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>