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

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

But I need a solution that works now, not a year from now. I am rolling 
out several major projects this year. Zot has been around since at least 
2012 and has a more mature feature set. ActivityPub started in 2017 and 
is missing features we need.

Plus, we have been asking for these changes to ActivityPub for years 
now, and we have mostly been ignored and when we were not ignored, our 
requests were denied. Probably because most of the social media 
platforms using ActivityPub do not need Social Web features, so they 
discount our Social Web needs.

Recently, ActivityPub has been more open to our needs, and I thank you 
for that. But we can only wait so long. We support both protocols, so 
when ActivityPub catches up, ActivityPub users will gain the features 
already enjoyed by Zot users.

And OpenWebAuth is fully compatible with ActivityPub. As a single sign 
on protocol, it does not conflict with ActivityPub federation. 
OpenWebAuth is supplemental to ActivityPub, not a competitor. Unless you 
plan on adding federated single sign on to ActivityPub.

If ActivityPub wants to be "the" protocol everyone uses, you have to go 
beyond the Mastodon use case. Not all of us are building social media 
apps. Some of us are building fediverse-enabled forum software. Some of 
us are building a social web.

When ActivityPub catches up, we will use ActivityPub. Until then, we 
will use existing protocols that already work.

I am a fan of ActivityPub and want it to succeed. But I have projects 
that cannot wait for these features to be added to ActivityPub.

Scott M. Stolz


On 1/2/2024 6:37 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>
> 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/>