181–190 of 426 posts
Twitter has repeatedly demonstrated that they are not a developer friendly company and that you should never build anything on their APIs. Since day one, they've done nothing but crack down on 3rd party development and peel away access. They are the last company that should be trusted to develop an open standard.
For what it’s worth, Matrix is trying to be the protocol that Jack describes here - complete with relative reputation systems ( https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/msc2313/propos... ) and an open standard ( https://matrix.org/docs/spec ) and even an open governance process and foundation ( https://matrix.org/foundation ) - and with work progressing towards fully decentralised p2p matrix. Rather than buildin…
Perhaps it's largely about branding/development control? I imagine it looks better to investors to say "we're making this new thing" rather than "we're gonna use this other thing that we don't own".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it seems like Bush forgot the quote, but in reality he likely realized halfway through he didn't want a soundbite of him saying "Shame on me".
This retconned history of the mistake that's popped up in the last few years is bizarre. No one thought this at the time. Bush tripped over his words all the time. It's much more likely that than a calculated move (that backfired btw, it's been his most famous quote since the day he said it.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Matrix is mostly built around chat rooms, not feeds like Twitter. I would assume any new system would take some parts of Matrix and some parts of ActivityPub but not the entire thing.
We built Matrix to synchronise any kind of comms data - we just call the primitive a “room” rather than (say) a “pubsub topic” or whatever more general term. You can absolutely build microblogging on top of Matrix; there are already a few toy examples already.
I was looking into building something on top of SecureScuttleButt, but didn't like some of the opinionated choices in it (same goes for ActivityPub). Looking at Matrix spec, the two seem to be somewhat conceptually similar, and Matrix seems to cover my needs. Never even thought to consider it before, but it might actually be a really good fit!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I somehow doubt Dorsey doesn't know about ActivityPub - why not just endorse it publicly if he genuinely cared about decentralization? Are there genuine technical shortcomings in the ActivityPub standard that Twitter's engineering team has identified? Why not talk about that and contribute improvements to the standard? Are there shortcomings to being part of the standardization process in the W3C? Then talk…
> Exactly. I somehow doubt Dorsey doesn't know about ActivityPub - why not just endorse it publicly if he genuinely cared about decentralization? Dorsey follows the Mastodon twitter account - he knows about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, Mastodon doesn't implement the full ActivityPub spec [0]. They're still very much behind the effort though, it seems [1] (or at least they were in 2018). Not only this, but they go against it in multiple places. How they've implemented 'summary' and the bizarre things they've done to create compatibility with Misskey (but not in an actually-compatible way, Misskey's had to patch their own solution every time) h…
> W3C is not neutral, and not only are they not neutral, but the RIAA and MPAA are people with enough sway to have messed up the entire web multiple times (see: making EME a standard). > A neutral party sounds great! The W3C should not get to be involved, however. Perhaps I got lost along the way, but... we're still talking about Twitter here right? Are you seriously calling out the W3C, an open but obviously flawed…
John Sullivan had a great tweet about this:
https://twitter.com/johns_FSF/status/909931688641400839
Fundamentally, the W3C does not work in the interest of the user, and shouldn't be trusted.
Get some of the Scuttlebutt guys or the Diaspora guys to contribute! Don't get the W3C, no one who's part of the W3C should have a say in anything.
Twitter making a standard would at least result in something not stupidly broken.
How could they avoid mentioning ActivityPub? This already exists! This goal is full of double-think.
That being said, solutions like Scuttlebutt, DAT, & IPFS are decentralized, do work, and do have social networks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> W3C is not neutral, and not only are they not neutral, but the RIAA and MPAA are people with enough sway to have messed up the entire web multiple times (see: making EME a standard). > A neutral party sounds great! The W3C should not get to be involved, however. Perhaps I got lost along the way, but... we're still talking about Twitter here right? Are you seriously calling out the W3C, an open but obviously flawed…
The point of that was to note that the W3C doesn't care about the user. John Sullivan had a great tweet about this: https://twitter.com/johns_FSF/status/909931688641400839 Fundamentally, the W3C does not work in the interest of the user, and shouldn't be trusted. Get some of the Scuttlebutt guys or the Diaspora guys to contribute! Don't get the W3C, no one who's part of the W3C should have a say in anything. Twitter…
Agree with most of your comment, but I can't see where this is coming from. I would be shocked if any "standard" coming from Twitter would be anything but broken.
Again, you're saying W3C doesn't work in the interests of the user, but ignoring that Twitter works actively against the interest of the user.
W3C isn't ideal, but the alternative being discussed is devoid of any merit whatsoever.
To those of you pushing for ActivityPub: Webber's trashed it (the initial author) and is working on a way to mitigate the problems of it by implementing incompatible changes, the biggest piece of software claiming to implement it doesn't even implement it (Mastodon), the only piece of software that stays semi-faithful is full of devs who hate it (Pleroma). AP is completely broken for anything but publicly-scoped cont…