3 ms·

> There they answer why their project is not federated, what revenue model they aim for, and why they aren't a non-profit. No, they don't. Federation-wise, th

by r3bl 8y ago

> There they answer why their project is not federated, what revenue model they aim for, and why they aren't a non-profit. No, they don't. Federation-wise, there's not a single word on federation. They talk about decentralization, not federation. To quote my other comment: > Instead of "Will I be able to run my own instance?", think: Will I be able to follow an Openbook account from my Mastodon account? As for the business model, I really need more than "atomic digital units of value" and "our ambitions go way beyond that". The last sentence does tell me something, but that something directly contradicts their stand on decentralization. As for why they aren't a non-profit, they generalize pretty much every non-profit and say that they "don't grow exponentially" (without defining what they mean), and they mention names that do indeed grow year after year. At the end, none of those three questions are answered for me.

class4behavior 8y ago
Federation is a sub-category of decentralization, so if they reject the latter it's usually obvious they don't plan to support the former either. Besides, their reasons for not running a decentralized service do apply for a federated service as well, and as far as I can see, they're using the terms synonymously anyway. Whether those are good enough arguments, that's another debate. >At the end, none of those three questions are answered for me. Well, it's still their answer, and that's what my post was about.
rapnie 8y ago
In their (now archived) ideas repo, one guy suggested ActivityPub. But they rejected that specification as not fitting with their requirements. See: https://github.com/OpenbookOrg/ideas/issues/1 https://github.com/OpenbookOrg/ideas/issues/1
- edraferi 8y ago
  Very interesting that their main reason for rejecting ActivityPub is GDPR. Basically, you can't delete information after its been federated out. This seems to go to far. Give the users control over their data in your system AND give them control over how their data is sent to other systems. Edit: In the linked issue, OpenBook CEO said that you can't delete mastodon accounts, but Mastodon got that feature a couple weeks after his post: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/3728 https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/3728
  - Kalium 8y ago
    > This seems to go to far. Give the users control over their data in your system AND give them control over how their data is sent to other systems. Depending on how you define "system", being unable to track and/or delete data federated out might put you in a hazardous position around GDPR. It's not just about users controlling their own data. It's also about system operators being able to enumerate who they shared data with, what safeguards and processes they follow, and so on.

by r3bl 8y ago

class4behavior 8y ago

Federation is a sub-category of decentralization, so if they reject the latter it's usually obvious they don't plan to support the former either. Besides, their reasons for not running a decentralized service do apply for a federated service as well, and as far as I can see, they're using the terms synonymously anyway. Whether those are good enough arguments, that's another debate. >At the end, none of those three questions are answered for me. Well, it's still their answer, and that's what my post was about.

rapnie 8y ago

In their (now archived) ideas repo, one guy suggested ActivityPub. But they rejected that specification as not fitting with their requirements. See: https://github.com/OpenbookOrg/ideas/issues/1 https://github.com/OpenbookOrg/ideas/issues/1

edraferi 8y ago
Very interesting that their main reason for rejecting ActivityPub is GDPR. Basically, you can't delete information after its been federated out. This seems to go to far. Give the users control over their data in your system AND give them control over how their data is sent to other systems. Edit: In the linked issue, OpenBook CEO said that you can't delete mastodon accounts, but Mastodon got that feature a couple weeks after his post: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/3728 https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/3728
- Kalium 8y ago
  > This seems to go to far. Give the users control over their data in your system AND give them control over how their data is sent to other systems. Depending on how you define "system", being unable to track and/or delete data federated out might put you in a hazardous position around GDPR. It's not just about users controlling their own data. It's also about system operators being able to enumerate who they shared data with, what safeguards and processes they follow, and so on.