Conversation

Notices

1. Marco Rogers (polotek@social.polotek.net)'s status on Friday, 23-Feb-2024 05:14:35 JST Marco Rogers

   I still maintain that the at protocol means that bluesky should be included in the definition of "the fediverse". I know it will take people some time to come around on that. And certainly bsky still has some promises to deliver on. But the actual fediverse will be so much messier than what people have in their heads right now. The lines will all be blurry and gray. By design.

   • Eugen Rochko (gargron@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 23-Feb-2024 05:14:24 JST Eugen Rochko

     in reply to

     @polotek In my view the fediverse is the network of platforms that speak ActivityPub. Anything else dilutes the usefulness of the term, because no matter how federated XMPP or Diaspora are, I can't communicate with them directly from a Pixelfed account like I can with Mastodon or Misskey.

   • Eugen Rochko (gargron@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 23-Feb-2024 05:15:39 JST Eugen Rochko

     in reply to

     @polotek It's true that the fediverse as a term was already in use back when the protocol was OStatus, and not ActivityPub, but it is a direct continuation of the same network, e.g. mastodon.social started as an OStatus node and then became an ActivityPub node, so in my view it's appropriate.

   • Eugen Rochko (gargron@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 23-Feb-2024 05:32:42 JST Eugen Rochko

     in reply to

     @polotek What is the purpose of the term fediverse in your opinion? If it's anything that is federated, then is e-mail and the telephone system also part of the fediverse? If not, why should Bluesky be?

   • Marco Rogers (polotek@social.polotek.net)'s status on Friday, 23-Feb-2024 05:32:48 JST Marco Rogers

     in reply to

     • Eugen Rochko

     @Gargron yes I understand the perspective. I still disagree with it. Explaining it again doesn't change anything.