3 ms·

I'll say it straight: You really do not know what this spec is talking about, that is why you are indeed misunderstanding this. And that's the positive interpre

by onli 8y ago

I'll say it straight: You really do not know what this spec is talking about, that is why you are indeed misunderstanding this. And that's the positive interpretation. By now your points amount to nonsense as they support a unsupportable position. Not one of those points has any relevance to this discussion: - This would not change - WebSub has nothing to do with mobile devices - This is not up for you to decide, and the server powering online feed reader or platforms like facebook do have a lot of data sources - That's not a point? For the type of RSS readers you are thinking about that would not change. - A CDN has nothing to do with this. - No. It is a decentralized/federated protocol, no middle man can do that. Your bonus point is invalid: The 3rd party is already there (pubsubhubbub is used in production), this is not primarily about this type of traffic reduction you are thinking about, but yes, the ressources needed to do without websub what can be done with websub on a big scale are enormous. Again, this is about enabling push architectures for server to server communication and a scalable way to achieve real time notifications. The tiny feed reader application on your smartphone is not directly related to any of this. It would not use this protocol, it can't use this protocol, and it would not stop working because of this protocol. Edit: I made this sound a bit nicer than initially. It really feels like you want to misunderstand this spec, this annoys me a bit.

antpls 8y ago
Sorry, but the title says "Open distributed protocol for pub sub communication", the only buzzword missing is "federation", which is by the way not used in the proposal. The difference between a proposal like ActivityPub and something like WebSub is that ActivityPub solves an actual problem of social network monopoly. The first products that come up with ActivityPub are free (Mastodon), while the products presented in this thread makes money from that protocol. In my opinion, it's sketchy.
- VoxPelli 8y ago
  The initial protocol used by Mastodon, OStatus, used Pubsubhubbub (which is the same thing as WebSub) as it’s realtime delivery method. WebSub is a spec from the very same working group that published the ActivityPub spec and WebSub is actively used by eg. the IndieWeb movement that do indeed very much solve social network monopoly as everyone hosts their social profiles themselves there.

by onli 8y ago

antpls 8y ago

Sorry, but the title says "Open distributed protocol for pub sub communication", the only buzzword missing is "federation", which is by the way not used in the proposal. The difference between a proposal like ActivityPub and something like WebSub is that ActivityPub solves an actual problem of social network monopoly. The first products that come up with ActivityPub are free (Mastodon), while the products presented in this thread makes money from that protocol. In my opinion, it's sketchy.

VoxPelli 8y ago
The initial protocol used by Mastodon, OStatus, used Pubsubhubbub (which is the same thing as WebSub) as it’s realtime delivery method. WebSub is a spec from the very same working group that published the ActivityPub spec and WebSub is actively used by eg. the IndieWeb movement that do indeed very much solve social network monopoly as everyone hosts their social profiles themselves there.