Re: Let's turn aspiration into fact?

For me, I see it something like this:

 1. A diverse set of applications are connected to the fediverse,
    including social media apps, blogs, and forums.
 2. Users can choose how they want to interact with the fediverse, in
    part because they have choices of platforms and software to use.
 3. Users can use one "social identity" to interact with multiple
    platforms. (They can also choose to have multiple social identities.)
     1. They can follow "channels" remotely (social media accounts,
        blogs, forums, private discussion groups, etc.) by receiving
        copies of messages in their inbox, and they can reply to those
        messages (if they have permission).
     2. They can log into other websites with their social identity, and
        interact with the posts and content locally.
 4. The software running the various platforms is smart enough to know
    that not all platforms or protocols have the same features, and can
    adjust their UI based on that.
     1. For example, a platform does not need to offer nomadic identity
        to its users, but should recognize a nomadic identity from
        another platform when they see one.
     2. Another example: If you cannot reply to a post because of
        permission setting on the originating server, the remote
        platform displaying the post should change the UI so that the
        user cannot respond.
 5. Users are able to see the whole conversation if they are following a
    threaded conversation, or be able to see all of the replies to a
    post for a non-threaded conversation.
 6. Users should be able to reply to a post even if it is not in their
    inbox (assuming commenting is allowed).

For forums and discussion groups, you would have some additional things:

 1. Users can participate both locally and remotely with the same social
    identity.
 2. People can participate in a forum even if they are using different
    protocols (if enabled by the forum).
     1. A forum can use multiple protocols because the forum is the one
        distributing the posts and comments to followers, effectively
        forming a bridge between the protocols.

This is what I see is possible.

Scott M. Stolz


On 2/9/2024 7:43 PM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 2024, at 16:06, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@dtinit.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So, to uplevel this into a vision, I have a vision where folks who 
>> view their streams as long-lasting and treat them as archive and 
>> reputation rolled into one, can move them easily to a new host if the 
>> new host is willing; and where moderators and admins , and other 
>> users consuming or interacting, can use the weight of an account's 
>> history and even the reactions to it, to make more contextual 
>> decisions.  The exact identity matters so much less than the unique 
>> history of content and contributions.  That history need not be lost 
>> when services inevitably rise and fall.  Civil discourse is supported.
>>
>> TL:DR; rich content history, even in a new location, even without 
>> complex cryptographic assurances, is good for the Internet.
>>
>> I think you asked for a diatribe, anyway that's clearly the way I 
>> interpreted it!  You're WELcome!
>
> Sometimes visions masquerade as diatribes :-)
>
> I think you are really asking for the content to live much longer than 
> any particular instance or application, and for the content to not get 
> “corrupted” over time in transfers to be more than absolutely 
> necessary. Where content is primary content (“I posted this”) but also 
> social content (“person X liked, commented…”)
>
> I have a ton of comments about this, but will refrain from now, other 
> than a … “hmmm … tricky!” But a great vision, thank you, and rather 
> complementary to what Sean outlined.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Johannes.
>
>
> Johannes Ernst
>
> Fediforum <https://fediforum.org/>
> Dazzle Labs <https://dazzlelabs.net/>
>
>