Important: We need Your Input on the Future of the SocialHub

I created an account just to post this.

Due to life circumstances over the past few years, I have been completely out of touch with web development and didn’t even realize that ActivityPub existed until a few days ago.

Before this week “fediverse” was a name in the back of my mind but I hadn’t looked into it.

In 2018 I had an idea for a social media site and have just restarted development on it.

Someone on Twitter mentioned ActivityPub to me and then after some digging I found SocialHub.

The initial post on this thread is the first one I read.

My first feeling was excitement (oh my gosh there’s already a whole community) then I felt a little concerned (oh no, it’s in trouble, is the entire protocol in trouble?) then excitement again (this thing they are building is bigger than any of us).

The potential to de-silo the major social media players and give independent ideas/experiments like mine a chance while still connecting those ideas to the rest of a larger social media landscape fills me with hope.

Chances are my social media site idea will fail. But this thing. ActivityPub. A standard protocol to federate social media? It’s vital and important.

And it’s succeeding.

I’m seeing mainstream interest. Non-techy people I’m connected with are discussing Mastodon on Facebook and are posting fediverse handles in their Twitter names.

I realize for y’all it must seem like ActivityPub is known technology, and for so many developers it is, but it seems to me that, far from waning or faltering it’s just now starting to gain momentum.

I’m not here to give y’all solutions because I’m just now catching up with what problems/solutions exist. I imagine you have already considered so many more than I even know.


  1. I’m excited to start implementing ActivityPub
  2. I’m excited to build tools to help de-silo existing social media (already have few ideas)
  3. My excitement is because of y’alls work.

With two young kids and still in the throws of dealing with an unexpected life, the only thing that is still in short supply for me is time.

I sincerely appreciate everything that has already been done and I think it’s vital we operate in the context of centuries not years.

No matter what y’all decide for the future of SocialHub, thank you again for all the work on ActivityPub and SocialHub.


Pinging those of you who publicly expressed interest in the vibrant option

Please read my post above and if it sounds good DM me at to help propose a clear path forward.

1 Like

I don’t know what OGB is, but I do know a little bit about how unaffected Indians chose not to involve themselves in someone else’s affairs until such time arose when it was they themselves, alone, to fend for themselves and their culture.

Governance is a tricky concept. Certainly, it can mean just that, with rigid structures that disenfranchise parties the most interested, because they perceive it as a control mechanism manipulated by others, not themselves, with special interests not their own.

And that @aschrijver , @onepict , @weex , and others here, is what is being prepared here.

I’ve lived through the trademark lobby and WIPO infiltrating and capturing the community with abetting from the U.S. And European governments when Internet governance was (supposedly) gifted to the community.

It didn’t end well and now part of the #DeSoc initiative includes obviating DNS, and to a lesser degree which cannot be completely decoupled, IP, in some fringe project circles. That is certainly not part of the ActivityPub aim in DeSoc, since it actually depends upon leveraging DNS.

I see much in the way of verbiage like “inclusiveness” bantered about, which itself is a nasty term often used to weaponize exclusion, but not withstanding those terrible connotations, suffice it to mention that we talk about including more than just devs in the conversation surrounding governance and “do-ability”, and then disregard that majority when we actually get down to preparing to implement a governing body, or bodies.

I’ve presented several times, as a speaker of the GA at ICANN’s annual meetings, and even though it’s the heart of what that governing body is, the only policy set, is the policy set through fiat by the board with input from special interest groups mentioned above and a few select others.

There is no money here in our arena, so to speak. Only a concern and a will to advance and protect the Fediverse whilst adhering to its core philosophies - concepts that can and will be subverted and forgotten almost as quickly as those definitions are changed on its Wikipedia page - just like the history of ICANN and Internet governance.

We talk about a do-ocracy, and do-ability, and campaigns to enlist the most affected and unbeknownst to them, the most affected of the non coding demographic of our DeSoc space, then silently dismiss them when the rubber meets the road and a project or talk of a protocol or Decentralized Social community governance model is formulated.

The deprecated, privacy disrespecting, legacy monolithic silo systems have infinite monetary assets from which to purchase influence. Influence in the form of professional confidence men to infiltrate, disrupt, and ineffectualize organizing. Influence to force legislation it deems beneficial to itself and its design for dominance. Influence to affect outcomes of community interest when those interests are not parallel to its own.

Now that the Fediverse has a bit of a darling moment with the media, already this transition is taking place with respect to certain paradigms of Fediverse DeSoc space - one particular platform has been singled out, with s shift away from the branding of Fediverse being a horizontally scaling network to a transition of vertical scaling for that platform’s brand, even going so far as to scrub the word “Fediverse” from its marketing material where it doesn’t directly benefit that brand itself - i.e., stability is better assured when a well funded, professionally operated large Fediverse instance is chosen over that of any #smallweb or community self-funded instance initiative.

FOSS developers understand very well the significance of things FOSS, its roll in the democratization of software and indeed the online world. But they are arguably the least impacted, regardless of their zealously devout commitment to two things (software and Internet). They can go ahead and simply move to another project, paid or otherwise, open source or otherwise.

The user, however, the whole reason that this software exists, is left excluded and at the mercy of the elements - some of which sre governance constructs and bodies which have given much lip service to their intrinsic value and significance, then summarily dismisses them come time for their actual input and enormous value in those governance bodies.

The irony? Well, it’s that the big, corporate, deep pocketed dreadnaughts actually embrace those societal components - those non-dev (doer) folks, because that’s the body of power that enables you to win, to make the decisions that matter, and the devs just code what they’re told to on that side of the fence, because it’s run by business people, and lawyers, and strategists and public relations departments that have the juice to spin a narrative any way they want to.

So two things l propose here:

  1. ) Make sure that this “community based” governance body is based upon advocacy, marketing strategy, and adoption as it’s primary mission - not infinitesimal operational specifications - We already have the FEP at Codeberg.

  2. ) Insure that the largest component of those bodies be those from the most affected and interested demographic of the community - non-devs. Those are the people who can actually effect the outreach and understanding of the principles to the masses that the devs can distill for them which leads to popularization, adoption, and critical mass; and the greatest defense against the FUD and disinformation published by the deprecated legacy silo systems.

  3. ) Stop taking about inclusiveness with respect to non-devs and then excluding them from the “do-ers” group - they actually DO, more than us.

Well, in closing I’d just like to thank everyone for taking time to read and as you know, my autocorrect is Satan and hates me; so allow me to apologize in advance for not proof reading in advance. I know, Cardinal sin lolz.

Thanks again and I hope that helps!





Now that is a reply, will think more on where this leads.

Why not continue the conversation here? I see no point in moving the discussion elsewhere, especially a back channel.

Though people have expressed interest above, it’s been a few months without any concrete results from the thread. To escalate, I feel the best way is to try and talk 1:1 with any interested parties. Since DMs are off (which is fair, there are many other platforms that have mods) I suggested people reach out to me as a lightning rod. My plan was to give the mentioned people two weeks to respond and go from there.

1 Like

Yep, this is a good criticism of “common sense” in current thinking, this recurring #mainstreaming problem killed meany affective activism projects I have been involved in. Simply calling this behaver “off topic” is a polite way of addressing the problem.

This is the obvious outcome of “foundation” governance, people pushing the hieratical path over the “native” horizontal #openweb are clearly “offtopic”, to say this is a polite why of talking to them.

Yep, how to get our more “liberal” #openweb fellow travellers to see/act on this as a problem is a challenge, ideas?

Yep this is the default behaver in so meany threads, It’s why am stating to call “off topic” as a polite why to MAKE people see that they are likely signal-to-noise issue at best or tolling at worst. It’s endemic, ideas please?

A “off-topic” thread talking about this here BRANDING on the fediverse

Good “non-liberal” common sense points we need to address in this space, thanks.


Perhaps you tagged me by mistake? Because I didn’t vote for revamp. On the contrary, I think this forum is a nice place, and I don’t perceive the community here as ‘unhealthy’.
So from my point of view, nothing needs to be done (apart from supporting existing forum administration efforts).

Thanks for clarifying. I interpreted your please don’t shut it down as more “vibrant” than “real exists community elsewhere.” From the response so far it seems our path will be more iterative than revolutionary.

As a bit of news, I’ve been granted moderator status a couple of days ago and look forward to helping improve this place. The forum’s had some outages on the hours timescale the last couple of days which is more of an admin vs mod issue but I’ll try to keep track to help figure this and any other issues out.


To add to this, if I see something of interest to the Fediverse,I will surely let you guys know. I would also suggest a sort of feed aggregator that picks up posts that have, say, the Fediverse tag, from around the web, though I have no idea ultimately how that could be accomplished.


I’ve been following this conversation and appreciate many of the comments.

I am seeing a lot of the idea that those passionate about creating a viable and humane social media ecosystem must continue contributing as starving artists of sorts to maintain the integrity of the mission. I think this is a false choice. There are business models that can attract the funding needed to build out solutions while keeping the integrity of the work intact. The non-profit for-profit hybrid model that WordPress implemented is a good example.

I would like to be part of a Fediverse startup. You can read more of my thinking at . Feel free to email me at adam at mosaic dot social if you’re interested in corresponding or having a chat sometime.


1 Like

I would love to have this conversation during OFFDEM. See OOO₃FFDEM Ozone Call for Participation - petites singularités.

Following up on this effort:

I received two responses privately, but only one that I would consider ready for action. This is good enough signal for me to support the status quo “Option 2, Just-a-forum. Continue as we are now. Needs a minimum amount of moderation”

That being said, I always hope we can iteratively improve things so I would advise interested parties to keep an eye on this Community forum.

I motion to close this vote and thread so we can move on. Can I get a second from another mod/admin? @how @nightpool @aschrijver


Yes, I agree with that. I followed with a…

POLL: SocialHub Scope and Purpose?