@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.

@breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan @thisismissem

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

@mastodonmigration @ikuturso @stefan @thisismissem

aye, there's the rub

even on mastodon, migrating to another server is hard.

you have to follow a 50 step process, create another account, then move all your stuff...

it would be hella nice to have a one-click button that simply moves all your shit to another server.

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

@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

@breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan @thisismissem

Yes, that would be nice.

@mastodonmigration @breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan Blacksky already recently managed a mass migration away from Bluesky hosted PDS's for their community. Similar could happen if needed for other communities.

@thisismissem @breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan

Yes, the Blacksky migration was impressive. It still did not change the overall percentage distribution numbers very much. It seems like proponents of AT Protocol should welcome criticism of too much dominance of Bluesky PBC and support more independent Blacksky type efforts.

Why, if Bluesky is actually serious about wanting AT Protocol to be decentralized, is there not more overt support for moving the numbers in a truly meaningful way.