Bridgy Fed made a splash earlier this week by announcing its latest progress in connecting the Fediverse to Bluesky and Nostr. Sadly, not everyone was welcoming.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sudneo@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

While I disagree with some of the positions in this specific instance. They do have their right to express their opinion on the nature and direction of the fediverse. Reducing everything to the individual experience is focusing on technical features but not on the collective and social aspects.

There are also tons of people who can't really help but using the same corporate metrics: growth, reach, users count, adoption. Not everyone agrees on these as objectives to pursue, and it makes sense to be vocal about the general direction from that perspective (because it goes way beyond my personal narrow experience).

That said, I can't stand those who use excuses like "privacy" or "there are bad actors", as their main motivations, because these are also largely individual problems. On the other hand, opposing to keep separated a corporate, for profit, social media from the fediverse is a whole different matter.

[–] 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

the nature and direction of the fediverse

The fediverse is a decentralized network. It doesn't have a cohesive nature/direction. It's made up of servers providing twitter-like experiences, servers providing reddit-like experiences, forums, personal websites, video platforms, etc. You'll never know all the places your fediverse data has reached because the fediverse doesn't have hard boundaries so you can't possible measure it all.

Which is why I think complaining about other what other software does is pointless. Instead, users should be pushing their own software to adopt more features to allow them to control their experience and data.

[–] sudneo@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I disagree, it is a set of multiple entities but there is a common denominator. For example, free software, no advertising as a business model, not commercial, not run by big corporations and talking over AP.

I think it's not pointless nor wrong to discuss these shared values (de facto values, beyond the technical fact I can spin up an AP software) and how certain parties do not share them and therefore should not be part of the fediverse in principle.

[–] 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

For example, free software, no advertising as a business model, not commercial, not run by big corporations and talking over AP.

None of those are requirements to be part of the fediverse. The fediverse existed long before ActivityPub was even proposed. Free software, ad free, non commercial, not run by big corporations are all just coincidence because its a grassroots effort. Even now, there's multiple companies invested in the fediverse: Mozilla, Flipboard, Facebook, Automatic being the most obvious.

Even if you take those as given, none of those dictate any shared values. Bridgy-fed itself meets all of those requirements but clearly holds differing values. Truth Social, Gab, Spinster, etc are all on the fediverse despite being abhorrent to the majority of the rest of the fediverse.

I'm in favor of groups maintaining shared values and enforcing policies based on them. But those policies can never apply to an entire network made up of distinct projects, servers, and people all with different ideas about how it should work.

[–] sudneo@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

None of those are requirements to be part of the fediverse.

They are de-facto values of the fediverse today. It depends what you mean by "requirements". Technically, you can join the fediverse in many ways, but the fediverse is not just a bunch of servers talking to each other, it's also a community of people. This community rejects some members for different reasons.

there’s multiple companies invested in the fediverse: Mozilla, Flipboard, Facebook, Automatic being the most obvious.

But those companies are very different, aren't they? Mozilla and Flipboard are participating within the fediverse, they are not plugging in their things, and their business models are not the same as Meta, and it is compatible with the values mentioned (well, Mozilla is a no-profit, in theory?). Wordpress is on the other hand very much aligned with the values of the fediverse. It is not the same as Meta and Bsky, both with the Silicon Valley DNA in them and all that it entails.

Truth Social, Gab, Spinster, etc are all on the fediverse despite being abhorrent to the majority of the rest of the fediverse.

And this is exactly where I disagree. Are they part of the fediverse? I wouldn't say so. They are completely isolated islands, that happen to use protocols that are similar to those used from the fediverse (software). They are not part of the fediverse if by that we mean the set of communities that populate it at all.

I suppose this is where the root of our disagreement lies. For me the technical network that links tools is not the fediverse. The fediverse is what is built on top of that network and it is inherently linked with the community and their values, in other words, it's a social subject. Personally, I can't care less if tomorrow anybody starts using AP and can (technically) interoperate with Lemmy or Mastodon etc., I would definitely push for the rejection of - say - Facebook (like the literal facebook) or Reddit, or Twitter etc.

[–] 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago

I suppose this is where the root of our disagreement lies. For me the technical network that links tools is not the fediverse. The fediverse is what is built on top of that network and it is inherently linked with the community

I wrote a long reply disagreeing with each of your points, but you're right. This is our disagreement. You're using the term fediverse to apply to a specific group of ppl/servers that share values with you and I think that's co-opting the term. The fediverse is more akin to the web (a platform based on technology that allows ppl access to other ppl and information) and it doesn't make sense to talk about it as a single organization.

I think trying to change its meaning like this is flawed and leads to issues like we're having now with Bridgy-Fed. You can't shout at everyone to use the tech in the way you want, because eventually there will be ppl/orgs that just don't listen. Instead, I think you should be pushing for existing platforms you're using (lemmy, mastodon, etc) to give you more control of your own data. There are ways to allow small-fedi users to create the exact type of spaces they want and anybody else to have the wide open fediverse they want, if the various project would implement them.

I'm happy to continue discussing this with you or leave it here. Either way, thanks for the chat and have a good one.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 3 points 9 months ago

it’s also a community of people

I guess you are projecting a bit.

The Fediverse is now more than 10M people, it's bigger than countries. And lots of people here (myself included, and even the developers of the ActivityPub standards) hope to grow it even more. We can not possibly expect to have a single "community" that is so uniform in cultural values. It would be incredibly boring.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They do have their right to express their opinion on the nature and direction of the fediverse.

on the other hand, they don't have to right to spam an independent creators github repository with threats.

[–] sudneo@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Of course not, that's idiotic behavior, but obviously not what I was referring to