Should we create a second activitypub, the general goals would be to kick Meta/Mastodon out of the workgroup, mastodons goal seems to be to drive EEE by ushering facebook so they can “improve” activitypub. I feel like we need to splinter off an continue development without meta
I mean Nostr exists, and it’s a pretty neat architecture where the clients do the heavy lifting in terms of authentication and content while connecting to multiple relay nodes, and the relay nodes know nothing other than that they’re relaying
You know that Facebook uses javascript? Do we stop using javascript? How about html? Do we shut that down? How about http? Do we shut that down? How about tcp/ip? How about the ascii character set?
The internet is based on Open standards. The idea that we would create a new standard just because someone we don’t like is using that standard is a non-starter.
The idea that we would then kick out the people who created the standard to begin with, who founded this ecosystem because they made a decision that we disagree with, you’re not looking for the internet, you’re looking for high school. Everyone can form their clique.
this wouldn’t solve any problem that can’t be solved with the current implementation of activitypub and would cause fragmentation in the community for both the userbase and developers. why fork when you can defederate?
plus you seem to be talking about mastodon servers as a single entity, it is not. every server can decide to federate or defederate with meta autonomously.
My main concern is propriety extensions being embraces and meta breaking things like content warnings. In general imagine you pretty much needing meta services in order to get basic functionality and you seeing the effects of meta regardless of your choice to federate with them
To what end? What would that accomplish that defederation from Meta instances can’t already do? Also, why are you targeting the entire Mastodon platform instead of the specific instances that choose not to defederate?
Add comment