4 ms·

As an IndieWeb participant, I find the ActivityPub-verse confusing. Perhaps one of you can help me understand. At Southern California Linux Expo, I joined a di

As an IndieWeb participant, I find the ActivityPub-verse confusing. Perhaps one of you can help me understand. At Southern California Linux Expo, I joined a discussion session to learn more about ActivityPub and the Fediverse. What I took away is that the flagship apps supporting ActivityPub are designed to cater to people who want a single app for each type of social media interaction that they have. One app, e.g. Pixelfed, for posting/looking at photos like Instagram. One app, e.g. Mastodon, for posting/looking at text notes or articles like Twitter/blogging. When each of these apps implement ActivityPub, it becomes possible for people to communicate across apps. (Presumably there's one for music listening...) I understand the drive toward cross-app communication, but I don't understand the "one app per use" way of thinking. Perhaps it's because I rarely use FB and have never used Twitter/Insta/Pinterest. To the extent that I want to broadcast my online social activity at all, I want to do all my posting with one UI, in one place (i.e. in one "app", my CMS) , and I don't care whether someone looks at my stuff by reading my website or subscribing to my feed. I think if someone just wants to see photos, or articles, or "tweets", or whatever, why build a separate app? Why not just filter the incoming content? Running e.g. a Mastodon instance requires someone to administer the server. Once that's in place, a community can grow up on that server. This seems to mimic more traditional web forums. Is that part of the draw? A central meeting point for your community -- with ActivityPub letting you use your identity in that community while interacting with people from other communities?

aklemm 7y ago
From what I've seen so far, Activity Pub does allow multiple apps per use so individuals can choose an app of their liking. For example, I'm using Pleroma instead of Mastodon and the interop with Mastodon instances has been seamless. It's early days exploring for me, though. This issue of bridging the IndieWeb and the Fediverse is fascinating. I'd think it would be more naturally collaborative, but there's a lot to sort out yet.
jlelse 7y ago
IndieWeb and ActivityPub can play well together. I for example am part of the IndieWeb using my blog. But my blog also supports ActivityPub, so that people can follow it using Mastodon for example and ActivityPub replies get translated to webmentions. However, it's a very custom implementation and I need to figure out how to make it available for use by more people. Probably the easiest way to participate in both the IndieWeb and the Fediverse is by using Wordpress with a couple of plugins installed.
contravariant 7y ago
To me this isn't too strange. Sure it's different but the alternative is our current system where each single social network implements its own video player when it grows big enough. I'm still trying to understand ActivityPub / Fediverse completely, but once you manage to make several social apps use the same underlying protocol then the app just becomes an interface and the protocol runs the social network. And just like how a file system has various kinds of tools to interact with different kinds of files, it's not odd for a network of shared 'things' to have several tools to interact with different kind of things.
- maxwelljoslyn 7y ago
  > once you manage to make several social apps use the same underlying protocol then the app just becomes an interface Thanks, contravariant! This was the key idea I was missing.
- chrismorgan 7y ago
  In theory the app just becomes the interface and the protocol runs the network, but in practice the implementations are hooked on the idea of being in control of the entire experience, and the app runs the protocol. Also, ActivityPub seems to be more like a vocabulary—apps then use their own data models, extensions, restrictions, &c.; some compatibly (e.g. Pleroma/Mastodon), some not. And from what I’ve seen, if I want to host several apps, each has to be on its own domain. Perhaps this is not a fundamental limitation (I don’t know), but it does seem to be a de facto limitations. I don’t want to host Mastodon at x.chrismorgan.info and post as me@x.chrismorgan.info, something else at y.chrismorgan.info and post as me@y.chrismorgan.info, &c. I want to use one identity across all the apps, and be me@chrismorgan.info for whichever app, which would then match my email address.
kixiQu 7y ago
I think that if you did use different corporate social media, you'd see that the different features encourage very different kinds of use. Instagram is the way it is, for instance, because even if what you want to post is a whinging paean to your ex, you have to figure out a photo to go with that in order to put it on your profile. Even if what you want to post is a text meme from Tumblr, you've got to screenshot it, and now other people can swipe that screenshot. The way people respond to restrictions on use creates new forms and modes of use; new platforms emulating old ones makes sense.
- maxwelljoslyn 7y ago
  > The way people respond to restrictions on use creates new forms and modes of use; new platforms emulating old ones makes sense. Thanks, that helps me understand.

aklemm 7y ago

From what I've seen so far, Activity Pub does allow multiple apps per use so individuals can choose an app of their liking. For example, I'm using Pleroma instead of Mastodon and the interop with Mastodon instances has been seamless. It's early days exploring for me, though. This issue of bridging the IndieWeb and the Fediverse is fascinating. I'd think it would be more naturally collaborative, but there's a lot to sort out yet.

jlelse 7y ago

IndieWeb and ActivityPub can play well together. I for example am part of the IndieWeb using my blog. But my blog also supports ActivityPub, so that people can follow it using Mastodon for example and ActivityPub replies get translated to webmentions. However, it's a very custom implementation and I need to figure out how to make it available for use by more people. Probably the easiest way to participate in both the IndieWeb and the Fediverse is by using Wordpress with a couple of plugins installed.

contravariant 7y ago

To me this isn't too strange. Sure it's different but the alternative is our current system where each single social network implements its own video player when it grows big enough. I'm still trying to understand ActivityPub / Fediverse completely, but once you manage to make several social apps use the same underlying protocol then the app just becomes an interface and the protocol runs the social network. And just like how a file system has various kinds of tools to interact with different kinds of files, it's not odd for a network of shared 'things' to have several tools to interact with different kind of things.

maxwelljoslyn 7y ago
> once you manage to make several social apps use the same underlying protocol then the app just becomes an interface Thanks, contravariant! This was the key idea I was missing.
chrismorgan 7y ago
In theory the app just becomes the interface and the protocol runs the network, but in practice the implementations are hooked on the idea of being in control of the entire experience, and the app runs the protocol. Also, ActivityPub seems to be more like a vocabulary—apps then use their own data models, extensions, restrictions, &c.; some compatibly (e.g. Pleroma/Mastodon), some not. And from what I’ve seen, if I want to host several apps, each has to be on its own domain. Perhaps this is not a fundamental limitation (I don’t know), but it does seem to be a de facto limitations. I don’t want to host Mastodon at x.chrismorgan.info and post as me@x.chrismorgan.info, something else at y.chrismorgan.info and post as me@y.chrismorgan.info, &c. I want to use one identity across all the apps, and be me@chrismorgan.info for whichever app, which would then match my email address.

kixiQu 7y ago

I think that if you did use different corporate social media, you'd see that the different features encourage very different kinds of use. Instagram is the way it is, for instance, because even if what you want to post is a whinging paean to your ex, you have to figure out a photo to go with that in order to put it on your profile. Even if what you want to post is a text meme from Tumblr, you've got to screenshot it, and now other people can swipe that screenshot. The way people respond to restrictions on use creates new forms and modes of use; new platforms emulating old ones makes sense.

maxwelljoslyn 7y ago
> The way people respond to restrictions on use creates new forms and modes of use; new platforms emulating old ones makes sense. Thanks, that helps me understand.