Fediverse Futures: Visions & dreams. Feedback wanted

Great! Sure. We should coordinate globally in all language regions. PS. Your English is quite alright :slight_smile:

Update: I just encountered a good example on Hacker News of technical mindset and possible shifts we need to make for the Fediverse. It comments the article My personal wishlist for a decentralized social network in which 3 desirable features are listed:

  1. Network-layer anonymity
  2. Grassroots content delivery
  3. Customizable moderation

I don’t disagree on any of them and also like the gist of the article… but look how technical the approach is. Not a single typical FB user will make the jump based on such feature list. The HN thread for a large part continues the technical focus, but there are also glimmers of looking more deeply on what a ‘social network’ means. Top comment by motohagiography is (formatting mine):

Thinking a new social network platform is destined to fail because it’s a copy of something, but without the impetus that produced the original. It’s the “make something people want,” but more “make something they use for X.”

You need the original purpose. It has to be to make something that isn’t itself. Myspace was mainly novelty and music, Facebook was for status minting from ivy colleges, other ones are for an exogenous purpose as well. Politics isn’t a useful unifying principle. I helped run a progressive political precursor to one of the major ones about 20+ years ago, and it only existed because it was tolerated by part of the establishment, and it could not survive a truly hostile environment.

Gamers made discord a thing because it was for playing games. Hipchat was about making code, and Slack was a way to manage people. Reddit was for sharing alternative/emerging culture.

A divergent platform needs a basis in the culture, and the current generation of censors came up in divergent/alternative culture, so they have a more sophisticated idea of what nascent opposition looks like than the old ones.

Short version is, we don’t need a decentralized social network, we need new culture that produces networks, and courage to create that culture.

Other interesting observation is in the response by rossdavidh:

I might also add that a social network like Goodreads or Stack Overflow that is based around some purpose or topic, is so different in tone from general purpose social networks that lots of people don’t even notice that it has essentially the same set of features. Also, way less toxic and icky feeling when you use it.

Of course, special-purpose social networks never become nearly as big as Facebook, but in my mind that’s a feature, not a bug.

Hey, that’s what we got with ActivityPub. Cool. The follow up is by halfmatthalfcat:

And might even be the future. Do we need something as big as Facebook? Maybe social networks in the future proliferate on “topic” lines where each network is tailored to whatever topic.

I’m working on a social-ish network for TV. Is Facebook good for live discussions about TV? No. Is Reddit? No. Is Twitter, kinda but not really. That’s the problem I’m trying to solve just for TV.

And lastly in this subthread we have 2 people, leppr and presentation, making observations that:

  • a) “people like general social networks because they value the specific human connections more than the topics of interest”
  • b) “I can’t imagine that the mass market will become OK with having like 10 different portals with inconsistent user experiences, unless under some kind of umbrella”

To a) I would say “It depends, and can be both” and with b) I mostly agree.

Interesting question: Can we Reimagine Social?

Our problem in building the Fediverse is that:

We are techies doing open-source projects, and from an isolated use case we build an app / product / service, that we then seek to integrate with the ‘broader fediverse’ (where that federation is often a secondary objective that comes later).

We may have the business domain of our app well thought out, but the business domain of the Fediverse itself has organically grown based on our technical perception of what Fediverse means. It is a domain of Apps, Instances and Projects and things like that.

It is an infrastructure domain!

In my Discourse Meta Community has no boundary: Discourse-as-a-Fabric post, I imagine a ‘global fabric of forum-related functionality’ being formed by ActivityPub adoption. Well, come to think of it… why should we restrict this concept to forums?

Fediverse: The Social Fabric

In the logo + slogan discussion I phrased the Fediverse slogan: Social Reimagined.
How would we do that?

Well… why wouldn’t any individual person choose exactly the Social Network that is most fitting and uniquely tailored to them, and is a mix’n match of various social features? Forget instances, forget apps, forget the infra layer… my social entrypoint is a mashup of all the things that interest me, presented through a portal of my choice.

If I want a cozy network for my friends and family, then I’d have that. If I also want a curated microblogging feed on a particular topic, I add it. Forum capability for that topic? Check and added. Podcast creation? Add it, and publish results elsewhere. Music service? Integrate and go.

Now this way of thinking is of course not new. And has been tried in the past as well. It comes with great complexity overall. But - and now switching to more technical focus again - all the technological foundations are there. ActivityPub and Linked Data are enabling technologies. We can build portals and mashups. Note that the latter need not be open-standards based, and anyone can build them in their own way (similar to those building AP clients now).

The mindset shift is what counts. What we’ll build in technical sense is:

  • Apps with their own front-end UI
  • Integratable services with API’s, C2S, S2S
  • Single-purpose clients
  • Portal clients and mashup frameworks
  • Bridges and adapters

Going back to the Social Media Fabric new concepts may arise. Like, it can still be daunting for a non-technical user to configure their portal in the way they like. Building portals with user-friendly features capable of doing so is super hard (think e.g. SharePoint), and might well fail.

But we may have more expert people (but not necessarily tech guru’s) that create tailored experiences which you might call, I don’t know, Social Media Templates of sorts.