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

Jacky wrote:

> I'm interested in seeing _existing_ forum software like Discourse being
> either modded or forked to support ActivityPub.


Why focus on _existing_ systems? Yes, certainly they have been able to
prove sustainability and have much to teach, however, it is well known that
existing systems will usually be inherently resistant to change (this is
not a negative statement). The problem is, of course, that an existing
system, with an existing audience, is unlikely to be motivated to expend
resources on interoperability without a clear demonstration of benefit to
its owner/operators or existing users.

Given that they already have a system that works:

   - Adopting a new protocol which is semantically equivalent but
   syntactically different offers little benefit
   - They benefit from the network effects inherent to having a
   walled-garden. Becoming a small part of a larger SocialWeb will make it
   harder for them to differentiate and harder to monetize what they have.
   - Interoperability would make it easier for their existing users to
   migrate to other systems while maintaining their social connections on the
   old system (This is good for users, but not good for existing service
   providers.)
   - etc.

Personally, I think it is less important to actually convert existing
implementations than it is to convincingly demonstrate that they *could*
convert. Such demonstrations would assure innovators, who have not yet
built solutions, that they could, in fact, build services at least
equivalent to those which already exist. This allows the innovators to
focus their creativity on discovering those protocol modifications or
extensions which would enable innovative and new applications or uses.

*The goal should be to encourage progress, not to merely consolidate legacy
systems.* While it makes a great deal of sense to learn as much as possible
from legacy systems, the focus should be on identifying and supporting that
which will enable the creation of innovative and useful systems that
haven't yet been built (or perhaps, haven't even been imagined!...) Rather
than saying to Discourse: "You *could* rely on Activity*," we should be
finding ways to say: "If Discourse were to rely on Activity*+, it could do
things that it can't today."

bob wyman


On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:43 AM Jacky Alcine <yo@jacky.wtf> wrote:

> I'm interested in seeing _existing_ forum software like Discourse being
> either modded or forked to support ActivityPub. They have an existing model
> of sustainability (in part of those who help found that project's existing
> capital) and a large enough audience that would connect thousands of
> Discourse instances into the Fediverse.
>
> It's a Ruby on Rails stack (IIRC), similar to Mastodon so there's
> opportunity for some level of reusability/overlap.
>
> On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 16:32 -0500, Bob Wyman wrote:
> > As discussed on [/.](
> https://tech.slashdot.org/story/23/03/08/172217/google-groups-has-been-left-to-die),
> yesterday, Andrew Helwer asked on [his blog](
> https://ahelwer.ca/post/2023-03-08-google-groups/): *"Google Groups has
> been left to die: Where should the formal methods community move?**"* He
> suggests that Google Groups is in decline and that *"It’s clear we ran
> afoul of the old lesson: don’t build communities for long-lasting FOSS
> projects on proprietary infrastructure you don’t control."*
> > *
> > *
> > It seems to me that the kind of discussion groups that started on USENET
> and then eventually migrated over to Google Groups are, in fact, "social"
> and thus might be usefully included within the scope of this group. (Even
> though NNTP is an IETF RFC, not a W3C standard.) In fact, it appears that
> one could construct a useful analog to these legacy systems 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.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > bob wyman
> >
>
>
>