Bounce, and how the Open Social Web is continually changing
Programming note: every week I send out an email newsletter. It contains all the articles I published that week, as well as an additional essay that has been not been published elsewhere yet. This is a republication of last week’s essay I send out, slightly modified and expanded. If you’re interested, subscribe below to get all the updates directly in your inbox every week!
When we talk about emerging technologies, especially social networks, we tend to seek clear definitions and boundaries. The question ‘what is the fediverse?’ quickly becomes ‘which platforms belong and which don’t?’ It indicates that definitions of terms like ‘Open Social Web’ and ‘fediverse’ are by their very nature contested. This theme, that the definition of what the open social web is continually contested, is of the core ideas behind a presentation I gave last week during FediForum. When the organisers asked me to host a session on ‘What’s New in the Open Social Web’ for newcomers to the space, I initially considered taking a straightforward approach, talking about software, and cool news apps people have been building. But I think that would have missed the trees for the forest. For people who want to get up to speed on what’s been happening in the space of the Open Social Web in the last half year or so, it seems much more helpful to understand how ideas about this space have evolved. The software and apps do not exist in a vacuum, but are built as a response to how people view the Open Social Web.
To understand the open social web, the fediverse, the ATmosphere and the entire cluster of loosely related open protocols, platforms and software, I think the best way is to see it as a set of contested ideas. The large majority of people who are involved in this “thing” of the open social web have some shared idea about that open protocols and open social networks are important. But once you zoom in a little bit more, it is easy to see that there are a wide set of diverging opinions on what the open social web is, what is included, and how it should work. Furthermore, these different opinions are not static, but change over time. A clear example of this is what I recently wrote about the concept of decentralisation, and how people’s viewpoints on this have shifted recently.
But the open social web is not just purely vibes and opinions, it is also shaped by technology and software. Technology sets the boundaries within opinions can be contested. Sometimes, technology comes along that changes what’s possible, and expands the understanding of what the open social web is. Bounce is a great example, of how a new technology changes and expands the contested boundaries of what the Open Social Web is
Bounce is a newly announced tool by A New Social, the organisation behind Bridgy Fed, which allows people to move accounts across different networks and protocols. With Bounce, people can move their social network graph from Bluesky to ActivityPub platforms like Mastodon and Pixelfed. This represents a significant technological development that was not possible before, as Bluesky uses a different protocol. For more information on how Bounce works, check out A New Social’s blog post.
Bounce is one of those tools that is meaningful not only for the technical capabilities, but also for how it changes what people understand the space of the open social web to be. Up until now, the fediverse and the ATmosphere were two different places, only partially connected via Bridgy Fed. With the ability to transfer a social graph across different protocols, these two separate places move much closer together.
One interesting property of a tool like Bounce is that it the existence of the tool matters more than people actually using the tool. A major part of building healthier social platforms is the ability to have a “credible exit”. That means that people can leave the platform if they want to, and take the valuable parts (their social graph and their data) with them. Bounce expands the ability to have a credible exit from Bluesky. One challenge that Bluesky PBC faces is that they’ve build the AT Protocol to give their users a credible exit to other apps using the protocol, but these hypothetical other apps are slow to emerge. Now users do have the possibility for a credible exit to another protocol, where there are multiple other communities and platforms to choose from.
What makes this space of the open social web, the fediverse and the ATmosphere so interesting to me is how it is continually changing and evolving. And with the ability to move your social graph between protocols, how we can understand this space has changed yet again. This is why I framed my update on Whats New on the Open Social Web in terms of contested and evolving ideas. The most significant developments in this space are not always new software or apps, they are also shifts in how we think about what these networks are and how they operate. Bounce is an example of both: it presents a new technology, the ability to transfer a social graph across protocols, but it also changes how people understand the ATmosphere and fediverse to be two separate places. Choosing a platform is becoming less of a permanent choice, as the social graph you build becomes more portable. Tools like Bounce suggest the direction of the Open Social Web is less about specific protocols, and more about expanding user agency.
https://fediversereport.com/bounce-and-how-the-open-social-web-is-continually-changing/