Re: The "Social Web" vs the "Fediverse"

On 26/12/23 23:44, Johannes Ernst wrote:
> 1. We know how the Fediverse looks like:
>
> You want to socially interact with your friends without a central 
> server in the middle? Set up a Fediverse instance, or find an account 
> on somebody else’s, follow your friends on other instances and 
> microblog (and more) away.
>
> So if the BBC wanted to do that, for example, they would (and have) 
> set up bbc.social <http://bbc.social/>, in addition to their primary 
> website at bbc.com <http://bbc.com/>.
>
> 2. In contrast, the vision of the “Social Web” is broader and less 
> “separate” from the rest of the web.
>
> E.g. Wikipedia says "The social web encompasses how websites and 
> software are designed and developed in order to support and foster 
> social interaction.” [1]
>
> So if the BBC wanted to be part of the “Social Web”, for example, they 
> would augment/change bbc.com <http://bbc.com/> to be a first-class 
> social web participant rather than setting up a separate fediverse site.
>
> 3. Roughly agree so far?
>
> But what does that mean exactly? How would bbc.com 
> <http://bbc.com/> look exactly if it were a first-class participant of 
> the “social web” that “supports and fosters social interaction”?
I have a web blogs which publish a new toot for every new post (same 
site, different protocols). In addition, I can receive activities on my 
inbox. It supports social interactions between others and me :D

Of course, wordpress people may ask to this question better, as with 
their plugin a post can receive and publish comments from the fediverse.

CL