@j12t @thisismissem

I hope not. 'Global trending' requires a central authority with a view into EVERY message on the system. And the last two decades have convinced me ANYTHING requiring such centralized access is dangerous and will be misused.

Federation is the ONLY answer if want you want is something the users control. Because, in worst case, we can fall back to whitelists instead of blacklists and tunnel the messages.

Have we learned NOTHING?

@jackwilliambell @j12t so that's the thing, with the ActivityPub API and you publishing to your outbox, and then that notifying others that you have, it's the same as current, but with your data in your control.

You don't need your PDS / outbox to participate in anything global, but it's certainly possible — you'd also have more control than you currently do with the existing Relays that bounce messages around heavily.

@ahltorp organisations try to raise crazy amounts all the time, especially when they thing there is sufficient hype to do so.

I haven't seen particularly much from anyone at FreeOurFeeds, and I don't think they are representative of the work going on in the ATmosphere.

@thisismissem @j12t

I'm saying I don't want to participate in anything global. I'm saying I want a protocol designed to be actively HOSTILE to participating in anything global.

Maybe others still yearn to suck from the teats of some centralized authority, but I've learned my lesson and I'm not going back. I'd rather not have social media at all than regress to a state where the protocols can serve a profit motive or an authoritarian.

Even if it is tarted up to look like something different.

@thisismissem But they *are* extremely representative of what is happening in the AT protocol space. It doesn’t matter if you like them or not. It doesn’t even matter whether they’re actually doing anything concrete or not (I suspect they aren’t).

From my perspective, supporting what FreeOurFeeds and Bluesky are doing is *exactly* what you’re asking us to support. Why would anyone even care about AT protocol if it weren’t for Bluesky?

@jackwilliambell @j12t then you literally do not need to. You can choose not to federate with anything "global" (whatever that would mean)

@thisismissem @j12t

As I do. And, let me be frank here: I think anyone who *does not* is a fool and will eventually rue that decision.

Maybe I'm the outlier here. But I'm on the Fedi for a reason. I run my own server, for a reason. And I DO NOT want to see ActivityPub changed to accommodate global authorities, nor do I want 'bridges' to centralized systems – of any stripe.

And I will continue to speak out against those who do.

You, of course, may choose to block me. But that's the beauty!

@thisismissem @j12t

I'm saying I don't want to participate in anything global. I'm saying I want a protocol designed to be actively HOSTILE to participating in anything global.

Maybe others still yearn to suck from the teats of some centralized authority, but I've learned my lesson and I'm not going back. I'd rather not have social media at all than regress to a state where the protocols can serve a profit motive or an authoritarian.

Even if it is tarted up to look like something different.

@jackwilliambell @thisismissem i for my part like the idea that when protests break out in Tahrir Square, I can subscribe to a global feed that gives me an idea of what is going on … certainly a much better idea than if I turn on the TV. I have that use case maybe once a year, but I’m glad it exists.

@j12t @thisismissem

> "I … like the idea that when protests break out in Tahrir Square, I can subscribe to a global feed that gives me an idea of what is going on…"

I think the fact you would automatically trust such a global feed is incredibly problematic.

I'd rather trust people. Individually. And even then my trust only extends so far.

I had a similarly long discussion yesterday about Epistemology. There is a sense in which I am continuing that here today.

@jackwilliambell @thisismissem who said “trust”? I just want to have it. The more the better.

@j12t @thisismissem

> "who said “trust”? I just want to have it. The more the better."

So you're fine with, for example, an algorithm subtly manipulating the information stream to gaslight you?

Because EXACTLY THAT has happened, is happening, and will (eventually) happen to any feed controlled by a central authority. No matter who the authority is.

I'd rather take a stochastic chance of getting as much different information as possible from non-centralized sources.

Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.

Yesterday at the Social Web CG meeting (the group that maintains the ActivityPub and related specifications), I proposed releasing a statement that counters the narrative that one of these protocols must win, when both protocols can co-exist and have a lot to learn from each other.

The statement has been co-signed by various members of both Social Web CG, SocialCG, and the AT Protocol community.

“We do not win by tearing each other down, which only emboldens and empowers those who do not want either protocol to succeed.”

“Arguing between us only emboldens those that seek to derail and destroy efforts to build an open social web.”

You can read the full statement here:
https://writings.thisismissem.social/statement-on-discourse-about-activitypub-and-at-protocol/

This was originally in the swicg/general repository, and you can learn about that here:
https://github.com/swicg/general/blob/master/statements/2025-09-05-activitypub-and-atproto-discourse.md

#activitypub #atprotocol #atproto #SocialWeb

@thisismissem This would make a great session at the next FediForum next month! If we can keep the discussion civil Any plans to run such a session? Let us know if we can help. https://fediforum.org

@fediforum I could certainly run a session on this, as long as I have moderators to help.

@nik I'd received multiple people saying yes, and been granted approval to merge. As it's not a specification change, the 14 day CFC did not look like it applied, and it did not need all members to agree or co-sign.

@stefan that visualization isn't particularly great at showing how (de)centralized it is though.

Things are not to scale in it: Single user PDS is as much as 1/50th the area of a Bluesky Corporate PDS with almost 400,000 users.

@mastodonmigration @thisismissem

@ikuturso @stefan @mastodonmigration @thisismissem

and?

if it enshittifies, people will simply migrate to other PDSes.

and those PDSes will start looking at different relays

the only thing i am concerned about is the appview thing, but i believe that deals with protocol content rather than any actual implementation (where the real nub of the control is)

@thisismissem

It is inappropriate to create a "statements" directory in the repository, with this as the only item in it, making it seem as if it was an official SWICG statement.

Things like these are, at the very least, called a "draft" until they officially pass. You are doing your cause (to which I object anyway) no favor with this fishy activity.

@nik

@breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan @thisismissem

The problem is a matter of scale. There is no way for 99% of users to "simply" move anywhere.