Re: Can the SocialWeb save Google Groups? (or, at least do what it should do?)

Johannes,
It is also interesting to note that Helwer's blog post
<https://ahelwer.ca/post/2023-03-08-google-groups/>was discussed not only
on /.
<https://tech.slashdot.org/story/23/03/08/172217/google-groups-has-been-left-to-die>
but also in very long threads on each of lobste.rs
<https://lobste.rs/s/mt2p8g/google_groups_has_been_left_die>, HackerNews
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35070618> and r/programming
<https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/11m02x6/google_groups_has_been_left_to_die/>.
Of course, all four of those discussion forums, and his blog, could have
used Activity* if it had been available at the time they were first built
and if the specs had been well-maintained. I wonder how much, if any
discussion, Helwer's post got on any of the groups.io lists or on Github
discussions <https://github.com/features/discussions>? Comments on the
other sites have often pointed out that until its shutdown on December 15,
2020, after 19 years of service, Yahoo Groups
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Groups> had been one of the largest
hosts of online discussion lists.

bob wyman


On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 5:26 PM Johannes Ernst <johannes.ernst@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On Mar 9, 2023, at 13:32, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:
>
> ..., it appears that one could construct a useful analog to [ group sw
> likeGoogle Groups etc ]  using ActivityStreams and ActivityPub -- but not
> the way they are implemented in Mastodon or most other existing AS/AP
> systems. It is also quite clear that using a Federated approach to maintain
> this kind of discussion might protect them from the catastrophic loss that
> arises when a proprietary system decides to change its priorities.
>
>
> Some random thoughts:
>
> * It appears to me that there’s nothing in Activity* that prevents those
> standards to be used for groups. Better to reuse them than to invent
> something new IMHO.
>
> * However, there is also nothing that explains how to do it.
>
> * People are already using reposting accounts but that’s more like mailing
> list exploder than a proper group.
>
> * UX needs may be larger than protocol needs.
>
> Is a future for USENET/Google Groups-like social interactions
> appropriately discussed here? Can or should the SocialWeb provide a new,
> more persistent, home for Helwer's Format Methods Community?
>
>
> The scope discussion:
>
> If we were to draw a map of the features of released software being used
> today, and the various parts that are standardized and are not, we get
> something very spotty. Lots of white areas, and ill-defined borders. This
> group sort-of-owns some of the colored parts, but far from all.
>
> If we were to draw a map of the features of that kind of software we can
> reasonably expect to exist 12-36 months down the road, we get something
> even spottier. Chances are interoperable software with an
> extended-compared-to-today feature set — and not dominated by a single
> market leader — is not possible because the appropriate standards aren’t
> being worked on.
>
> I would find this regrettable. We should be taking the initiative in
> building out a brave new decentralized social world that goes far beyond
> what qualifies as “social” today. If we don’t, somebody else will.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
>
> Johannes Ernst
> Blog: https://reb00ted.org/
> FediForum: https://fediforum.org/
> Dazzle: https://dazzle.town/
>
>