4 ms·

Right on. Not only that, but from what I've read, the protocol is a mess. It lurches in a number of directions but doesn't successfully reach any of them. So it

Right on. Not only that, but from what I've read, the protocol is a mess. It lurches in a number of directions but doesn't successfully reach any of them. So it's really hard to develop for, you pretty much have to be an insider to make any progress. Which adds up to a terrible standard. But above all, as you pointed out, why are people trying so hard to replicate an obviously easily exploitable and now more prone to individual failure/abuse model? Is unprotected identities and scraps of paper, oh and tags like 2007 twitter, really the best, most user honouring application of current tech? https://cosocial.ca/@hrefna@hachyderm.io/111692934209903603 https://cosocial.ca/@hrefna@hachyderm.io/111692934209903603

mariusor 3y ago
I'm curious what you're reading into what Hrefna said to make you believe that the protocol is a mess. If there is such a thing, it's mostly due to many fediverse developers trying to maintain interop with Mastodon, which leads to innumerable quirks that one needs to be mindful of. Why do you think another protocol which has barely any implementations at the moment would be better when confronted with the same problem: many developers, interpreting some things in many ways?
- davidy123 3y ago
  hmm did you read the entire thread? comments like «The problem is that _AP itself_ is hard to implement correctly and nontrivially in a way that scales», «I was surprised at how difficult I found the spec(s) to read compared to theoretically more complex ones I've read in the past,» «something went direly wrong in the standards realm sometime around the OAuth2 RFC, which says verbatim that following the spec as it stands will produce implementations that don't interoperate. ActivityPub has the same nature and when we complained about it last year we got a bunch of dweebs telling us that the activitypub spec is fine because it has optional protocol annexes that "all the real implementations" follow»… and basically all the comments. including yours. I wasn't specifically endorsing Bluesky, but it would not be surprising if a professional, clean slate protocol based on the "learnings" of the past would be simpler to implement and just all round better. I think the use of DIDs opens up to many interesting options, none of which need to use a blockchain. It's a shame about ActivityPub, I think Linked Data is a really important tech that hasn't been picked up enough, but from what I hear it's a really half hearted implementation at best.
  - mariusor 3y ago
    I have developed ActivityPub software, I am aware exactly how difficult it is to implement - which is less than what Hrefna's thread would lead one believe. I think the main thesis of what she is saying is that there are a many places where developers need to think for themselves because the spec has many blind spots. But that's why we also develop tools and libraries to make it easier for future devs to start from a good foundation. She is doing it (as far as I know), and I am doing it. > Do not cite the Deep Magic to me, Witch. I was there when it was written.
    - davidy123 3y ago
      It should not be "deep magic." That is the problem. It should be pretty ordinary for anyone to use it. I hope you and others are making libraries to improve the situation.
      - mariusor 3y ago
        That last part was a joke to underscore the fact that I'm not speaking in ignorance. :P
    - Nasreddin_Hodja 3y ago
      > I have developed ActivityPub software, I am aware exactly how difficult it is to implement - which is less than what Hrefna's thread would lead one believe. I have developed too but it wasn't very difficult for me. Well, in most cases all my problems were due to my laziness to read ActivityPub rfcs carefully.

mariusor 3y ago

I'm curious what you're reading into what Hrefna said to make you believe that the protocol is a mess. If there is such a thing, it's mostly due to many fediverse developers trying to maintain interop with Mastodon, which leads to innumerable quirks that one needs to be mindful of. Why do you think another protocol which has barely any implementations at the moment would be better when confronted with the same problem: many developers, interpreting some things in many ways?

davidy123 3y ago
hmm did you read the entire thread? comments like «The problem is that _AP itself_ is hard to implement correctly and nontrivially in a way that scales», «I was surprised at how difficult I found the spec(s) to read compared to theoretically more complex ones I've read in the past,» «something went direly wrong in the standards realm sometime around the OAuth2 RFC, which says verbatim that following the spec as it stands will produce implementations that don't interoperate. ActivityPub has the same nature and when we complained about it last year we got a bunch of dweebs telling us that the activitypub spec is fine because it has optional protocol annexes that "all the real implementations" follow»… and basically all the comments. including yours. I wasn't specifically endorsing Bluesky, but it would not be surprising if a professional, clean slate protocol based on the "learnings" of the past would be simpler to implement and just all round better. I think the use of DIDs opens up to many interesting options, none of which need to use a blockchain. It's a shame about ActivityPub, I think Linked Data is a really important tech that hasn't been picked up enough, but from what I hear it's a really half hearted implementation at best.
- mariusor 3y ago
  I have developed ActivityPub software, I am aware exactly how difficult it is to implement - which is less than what Hrefna's thread would lead one believe. I think the main thesis of what she is saying is that there are a many places where developers need to think for themselves because the spec has many blind spots. But that's why we also develop tools and libraries to make it easier for future devs to start from a good foundation. She is doing it (as far as I know), and I am doing it. > Do not cite the Deep Magic to me, Witch. I was there when it was written.
  - davidy123 3y ago
    It should not be "deep magic." That is the problem. It should be pretty ordinary for anyone to use it. I hope you and others are making libraries to improve the situation.
    - mariusor 3y ago
      That last part was a joke to underscore the fact that I'm not speaking in ignorance. :P
  - Nasreddin_Hodja 3y ago
    > I have developed ActivityPub software, I am aware exactly how difficult it is to implement - which is less than what Hrefna's thread would lead one believe. I have developed too but it wasn't very difficult for me. Well, in most cases all my problems were due to my laziness to read ActivityPub rfcs carefully.