Is it ok for people on the ActivityPub network to speak negatively about other distributed social networks?
-
Why would the rules for polite and rational discussion need qualifying?
Or does "speak negatively" just mean "shit talk the other"?
-
Why would the rules for polite and rational discussion need qualifying?
Or does "speak negatively" just mean "shit talk the other"?
@tomjennings I think qualification might be something like "yes if polite and rational, no if shit talk", which seems to be what you said here.
-
@evan For me, ActivityPub IS the Fediverse.
@manu me too, but not everyone agrees, so I wanted to be clear.
-
@evan you guys use distributed social networks for anything else than speaking negatively about distributed social networks?
-
@evan you guys use distributed social networks for anything else than speaking negatively about distributed social networks?
-
@tomjennings I think qualification might be something like "yes if polite and rational, no if shit talk", which seems to be what you said here.
Yes. But the question comes down to, when is it ok to shit on your peers?
-
Yes. But the question comes down to, when is it ok to shit on your peers?
@tomjennings Does it? Is everything negative about a social network (it's small, it's slow, it's unreliable, it's hard to use) "shitting on" someone? Could you say something negative fairly and not in a mean way? I'm not sure.
-
@evan no. you're only allowed to speak about the network you're currently on. this is why i criticize fedi on fedi and criticize bsky on bsky.
-
@tomjennings Does it? Is everything negative about a social network (it's small, it's slow, it's unreliable, it's hard to use) "shitting on" someone? Could you say something negative fairly and not in a mean way? I'm not sure.
Oh of course. I must have misread the intent of the poll.
-
@evan no. you're only allowed to speak about the network you're currently on. this is why i criticize fedi on fedi and criticize bsky on bsky.
@trwnh very compartmentalised!
-
Oh of course. I must have misread the intent of the poll.
@tomjennings a little secret: when I write polls, I usually leave a lot of wiggle room in the question, because my favourite part is the conversations that come from trying to nail down an answer.
-
Hey, everyone. Thanks for the responses. It's really interesting to see that ~90% of people think that at least in some circumstances it's OK to speak negatively about other networks. This is my feeling too; I'd say "Yes, but...". I don't have good criteria for when it's OK and when it's not, though.
-
Hey, everyone. Thanks for the responses. It's really interesting to see that ~90% of people think that at least in some circumstances it's OK to speak negatively about other networks. This is my feeling too; I'd say "Yes, but...". I don't have good criteria for when it's OK and when it's not, though.
@evan I don't like the premise, 'speaking negatively'.
You can certainly speak critically and constructively about another network but ultimately why?
Let's continue to evolve the network we're on and speak constructively about how to make THIS better instead of focusing our limited energy on how the other ones are wrong.
I've done my fair share of bashing of BSky for example, but I've come to realize... I don't know enough to make assertions about other networks.
I only know that I like the "ideals" behind ActivityPub and it resonates with me on a deeper level than what other networks have done.
... I'm ranting. Let's stop focusing on other networks, and focus more on "our own" and make this one better. That's all I'm trying to say I guess.
-
@evan I don't like the premise, 'speaking negatively'.
You can certainly speak critically and constructively about another network but ultimately why?
Let's continue to evolve the network we're on and speak constructively about how to make THIS better instead of focusing our limited energy on how the other ones are wrong.
I've done my fair share of bashing of BSky for example, but I've come to realize... I don't know enough to make assertions about other networks.
I only know that I like the "ideals" behind ActivityPub and it resonates with me on a deeper level than what other networks have done.
... I'm ranting. Let's stop focusing on other networks, and focus more on "our own" and make this one better. That's all I'm trying to say I guess.
@nopatience I guess some folks think that "A is better than B in some way" is being negative about B.
-
Hey, everyone. Thanks for the responses. It's really interesting to see that ~90% of people think that at least in some circumstances it's OK to speak negatively about other networks. This is my feeling too; I'd say "Yes, but...". I don't have good criteria for when it's OK and when it's not, though.
I think one reason we have this issue is that often these networks have one implementation per protocol. So, speaking about the network is speaking about the implementation -- usually, a passion project by an Open Source team.
-
-
@ben lol
-
Hey, everyone. Thanks for the responses. It's really interesting to see that ~90% of people think that at least in some circumstances it's OK to speak negatively about other networks. This is my feeling too; I'd say "Yes, but...". I don't have good criteria for when it's OK and when it's not, though.
@evan Blanket avoidance of being negative would rule out useful mechanisms as well. E.g., exposing harms by the practices of the other network, or analysis of what works (and what doesn't.)
Perhaps a useful line in the sand would be whether the negativity is the point.
-
Is it just me, or does i seem like the person pushing this AP <-> AT equality position is in fact normally pretty dismissive of AP, and, as much as I'd like to assume good faith, might be hiding an agenda?
I mean, I'm all for cooperation and coexistance, so I'm inclined to support her statement at face value, but then I look at other posts, and it starts to make me feel iffy about the whole thing.
-
Is it just me, or does i seem like the person pushing this AP <-> AT equality position is in fact normally pretty dismissive of AP, and, as much as I'd like to assume good faith, might be hiding an agenda?
I mean, I'm all for cooperation and coexistance, so I'm inclined to support her statement at face value, but then I look at other posts, and it starts to make me feel iffy about the whole thing.
@spraoi She's actually very involved! She leads the ActivityPub Trust and Safety Task Force for W3C, and is also going to lead the ActivityPub API Task Force with me. So, the call is definitely coming from inside the house, here.
