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

It makes more sense to build ActivityPub extensions for features we 
don't yet have, instead of depending on incompatible protocol stacks.

Evan

On 2024-01-02 10:23 a.m., Scott wrote:
>
> That is exactly what we are working on at Neuhub: websites with social 
> features built-in. And we are even going farther by creating federated 
> communities with privacy features and a federated single sign on.
>
> And most of the technologies/protocols to make this happen already 
> exist. They are just not popular with the rest of the fediverse, and 
> are not documented well (although we are working on that).
>
> 1. We use ActivityPub for public posts and to connect to the rest of 
> the fediverse.
>
> 2. We use Zot or Nomad protocols for private channels, groups, and 
> forums, since ActivityPub doesn't have all of the features we need.
>
> 3. We use OpenWebAuth (Magic Sign On) as a federated single sign on. 
> You can use your social identity to log into websites, forums, and 
> social media websites so you can interact locally.
>
> The protocols to do these things exist and have been around for awhile 
> as part of Hubzilla and Streams.
>
> With these technologies, we can create interesting things like:
>
> 1. Websites with a built-in fediverse-enabled channel, that is visible 
> on their websites, and also can be followed on the fediverse. Their 
> fediverse channel is part of their website and has their domain name. 
> No third-party fediverse server required.
>
> 2. Communities and forums that can be accessed both locally (via local 
> login and Magic Sign On), and remotely via ActivityPub or Zot or 
> Nomad. You can use your social identity to interact with the forum or 
> community either way.
>
> 3. Create private groups, forums, or membership websites, that people 
> can participate in using their fediverse identity (via Zot, Nomad, and 
> OpenWebAuth).
>
> As you mentioned, there is a difference between the fediverse and the 
> social web. Some people want to create a clone of Twitter or Facebook 
> or Instagram or YouTube or whatever. Some people want to create 
> websites that interact with the fediverse. It is a different paradigm.
>
> In 2024 we will be launching several websites that demonstrate our 
> concepts, and will be working on the documentation so others can 
> participate too. We hope that our work will be a game changer.
>
> But the social web is being built, and it can connect to the 
> fediverse. It just needs some additional features that ActivityPub 
> doesn't have, but luckily we have Zot, Nomad, and OpenWebAuth for 
> those features.
>
> Scott M. Stolz
>
> P.S. /email resent to //public-swicg@w3.org so it shows up the discussion.
> /
>
> /
> /
>
> On 12/26/2023 4:44 PM, 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 know what I would want to do … but there are a bunch of 
>> conventions/protocols/standards missing to do that. On the other 
>> hand, nobody is really working on those, at least not here, so 
>> perhaps my vision is different from other’s vision.
>>
>> I’d appreciate pointers or explanations that outline various points 
>> of view on how the “social web” would ideally look like, and also how 
>> the fediverse could morph into it over time. Assuming people think 
>> that is still a worthwhile goal.
>>
>> (With apologies to the BBC for using them as my example vehicle here 
>> … obviously it has nothing to do with the BBC per se)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Johannes.
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_web
>>
>>
>> Johannes Ernst
>>
>> Fediforum <https://fediforum.org/>
>> Dazzle Labs <https://dazzlelabs.net/>