Fediverse centralization ➜ EEE vs. P2P AP small technology approach

This topic is branching off from the wonderful discussion on offers between @AndrewMackie and @cjs here: Offers unchained


This is such a good point that @cjs is raising, and one that I see mentioned all of the time in various places, but I feel that it is not properly addressed so far, in favor of all the other things that need to solidify in AP based specs, implementations and processes.

One thing that intrigues me is a mixed model of federation and peer-to-peer based ActivityPub support. And from a humane technology perspective I am also really charmed by the efforts of Aral Balkan to define and build Small Technology (as opposed to ‘Big Tech’ nomenclature).

One of the tenets of small technology is that it is peer-to-peer, and AFAICS there is nothing in the AP specs that withholds one from creating a P2P software that happily integrates in the fediverse fabric.

Aral is developing a cool personal web-publishing kit based on the 10 tenets of small-tech, called Site.js (new website + release coming soon). Besides taking meticulous care of making it small + simple Aral, I believe intends to make it p2p by giving it a DAT foundation in another project.

Interesting subject for this topic:

  • How do we mitigate the centralization of the fediverse and the risk for EEE’s?
  • What do you think about peer-to-peer ActivityPub in a small technology approach?
  • Which strategies would lead to a healthier mixed federated / p2p fediverse soonest?
1 Like

I and several other people have personal pubs. Works well for me, federated nicely with others.

What do you think about peer-to-peer ActivityPub in a small technology approach?

Yes please more of that.

1 Like