Thanks for the links. I’m reading through them. They are very interesting and I’ll be adding them to my bookmark collection for future reference. I do see that some of them define the Fediverse in terms of software implementations (different sets of implementations in different articles) and some define it terms of protocols, but the set of protocols isn’t always the same. The pump.io protocol is in some and not others, for example, and Zot is included in the Wikipedia article you referenced earlier. I do see that OStatus and later ActivityPub were “core” protocols for the historical Fediverse described in several of the articles. I don’t see anything that describes a consensus to freeze the set of Fediverse implementations and protocols as of 2018.
Here’s where I think we may agree? The Fediverse:
- Is multiprotocol (historically, StatusNet/OStatus, pump.io, zot, ActivityPub, …)
- The set of those protocols changed over time (pump.io and ActivityPub were added later, for example)
We may or may not agree on:
- The Fediverse term has always been somewhat vague and used in somewhat varying ways.
It seems like our disagreement is whether the term Fediverse (or fediverse), which historically described federated social network/web protocols and implementations, should have a definition that’s frozen in history or if it should be allowed to reflect current reality. It’s a classic conservative versus progressive conflict that we probably won’t resolve here. In any case, I do understand that you want the definition to be a static one based on the somewhat vague historical usage. I hope you understand I think it’s more useful to let the definition evolve with the times.
Sorry, but I think this is a silly and self-serving definition. I prefer a modern definition that captures the essence of federated social networks, inclusive (tech) diversity, and celebration of continuing innovation and collaboration that helps people connect and communicate effectively. To some extent, this is a self-serving definition too, since the modern definition represents my values (in a way that I believe is compatible with the historical use of the term).
I see that in the past you’ve used the term “activityverse” rather than “fediverse” to describe the ActivityPub network. I like that better. One option is you (and the Foundation) could use “activityverse” for the ActivityPub-specific network and others can use “fediverse” to refer to the current day network of networks of federated social networking software (including the “activityverse” and others).
Have you read Foundation web site or the launch announcement (linked earlier)? Evan and the Foundation are not trying to unify anything other than implementations based (however loosely) on ActivityPub. I believe the name should reflect that goal (seems obvious) and I feel the approach is divisive, not unifying. It’s about marketing and creating a “bigger and better” ActivityPub network and appealing to big business. Some people will just see the misleading name and think the Foundation is unifying and inclusive and won’t bother to read the fine print. In the same way you won’t write “GitHub” in the correct way, I intend to not use “Social Web” when I refer to the Foundation. I don’t want to promote the misinformation since the Social Web is not synonymous with ActivityPub. If the Foundation had been named accurately and was transparent about its objectives, I’d fully support it. But the current misleading marketing strategy, which appears now to be quite intentional rather than poor phrasing, is not something I will support.
Again, thanks for the historical links.