Fuck Facebook and NFT.
WE are the real Metaverse. WE are the actual Web3.0. WE are open, decentralized, empowering, not THEM.

The world hasn't seen a network quite like Fediverse. Such networks need a name and a definition, and they STOLE it from us. They played you like a goddamn fiddle.

@drq
>The world hasn't seen a network quite like Fediverse.

But it has seen very similar ones, eg. SMTP and XMPP.

You can call it Web 3.0 if youbwant but we're merely getting back to where we were in the 90s.

Since most of the web has been regressing towards mainframe age during the last decade, you could call this a success. But we have ways to go.

@wolf480pl xmpp is homogenous. No node is different in function and presentation from another node. Fediverse is WILDLY heterogenous. Those are on completely different levels.

@wolf480pl
Samr goes for e-mail. All mail servers are ideally the same.

@wolf480pl
Heterogenous meaning everybody is free and even encouraged to do shit their own way, as long as they stay compatible. So we have microblogging, full-service social networks (Friendica), videohostigs and streaming services, photohostings, social playlist sharing services (Funkwhale), soon there will be social reading engine, there's already a game of fucking chess (castling.club), you name it.

@wolf480pl anyway, that's why Fediverse is different and why it's first of its kind.

@drq XMPP isn't all that homogenous - the core protocol may be the same for everyone, but different servers implement different sets of extensions, and then there are components like MUC, gateways to other protocols, HTTP upload, videobridges, etc., each of which does something different, and different implementations of each of those vary noticeably too.

There is also some variety across clients. Not as much as in case of Fedi - AFAIK Movim is the only one which tried doing a non-IM UI.

Follow

@wolf480pl For XMPP, trying to get heterogenous is more of a hinderance, because it's not explicit and just introduces mess without any real benefits. XMPP is better when everyoune is on the same page as to what extensions we support and what we don't, which client we use, which supports the extensions we use, etc.

· · Web · 2 · 0 · 0

@wolf480pl If we start switching XMPP extensions on and off, the whole becomes less than the sum of its parts. Not so with the Fediverse.

@drq
Yeah, it certainly feels like this.
But why is that so?
What is it that we don't like about XMPP heterogenity?
Well, it's not quite compatible.

Unless you specifically choose a client and server that work well together, nothing but a basic text chat will work reliably. Any fancy stuff tends to be incompatible.

But then, is fediverse any better? What kinda user experience do you get when viewing a peertube video in Mastodon, other reading and replying with basic text?

@drq Heck, there are incompatibilities even across different implementations of microblogging. Pleroma has a bunch of features that look like garbage when viewed with Mastodon. Mastodon's reply-on-home-TL-visibility semantics aren't expressed well in the APub objects, so you'd have to copy its heuristics to display it in the same way on any other server, even when using the same client.

@drq And then there's Misskey with its quote-replies.

@wolf480pl But still, _somehow_ it all works way better than if we tried to implement the same stuff via XMPP

@drq yeah.

Fediverse is no doubt a significant improvement in terms of UX, and is a big change in the social aspect - it has wider adoption, unique subcultures, people actually use it instead of idling, etc.

What I'm saying is, it's not a new invention technology-wise. It just a slightly better execution of existing inventions that happened to become popular.

@wolf480pl Isn't every new invention a slightly better executed and transformed sum of existing inventions?

Everything is a remix.

@drq imagine a world where microwave ovens are only used industrially. If I start making smaller microwaves made of cheaper parts and selling them to individual customers for household use, is that an invention?

@wolf480pl Not a breakthrough, maybe, but invention nontheless. Cost-optimization is very not easy.

@wolf480pl However, in the context of our talk it's not a very relevant comparison.

@drq hmm yeah, so in a similar way, I think fediverse is not a breakthrough. What it does was known to be possible for two decades, but nobody before figured out how to make it accessible to the masses.

@wolf480pl

> What it does was known to be possible for two decades

Not before the invention of Ostatus. Which is yeah, 13 years old. The Fediverse is older than you probably know.

> but nobody before figured out how to make it accessible to the masses.

Well?..

@wolf480pl And if we're being completely correct, for "availability to the masses", you can thank Mastodon. It caused the Fedi to explode.

@drq if you stopped and think after seeing XMPP and twitter, I think it'd be clear that making a federated twitter would be possible.

That you could use the federated twitter protocol for a federated reddit and a federated youtube... well, not so obvious, but it doesn't take a genius to spot that at their core, they're all similar.

@wolf480pl "Federated twitter", yes, probably easily. "Federated everything that federates with federated everything" - well... Probably you could, but XMPP didn't do it, OStatus did, and that's the distinction.

The question is not "who could". The question is "who did".

@drq did anyone try doing "federated everything" with Ostatus before Mastodon though?

@wolf480pl @drq Well yeah, GnuSocial and Friendica were interoperable.

And federation isn't really a new concept.

@lanodan @drq
that federation is an old concept is what I've been saying throughout the whole thread.

As for Friendica - interesting. So they did try to make a facebook-like interoperate with a twitter-like in 2010.

@lanodan Homogenous federation has been since the Internet was conceived.

Heterogenous federation is novel.

@wolf480pl

@drq @lanodan
Depends how you define federation. If you imply it existed before DNS, then I have a feeling your definition is so broad that there was a heterogenous network in the 80s that would fall under that definition.

@wolf480pl @drq I think you could argue that UUCP networks and maybe FidoNet were federated and DNS is quite "recent" in the history of the internet.

@wolf480pl It did exist before DNS. But DNS lifted a lot of complications by creating a shared namespace.

@lanodan

Show newer

@deavmi what attempt to federate non-IM over XMPP do you know of?

Show newer

@wolf480pl Yes. Before OStatus even was a thing, there was Open Microblogging Protocol. Which formed kinda like a proto-Fediverse. It connected a couple distinct sites with Evan's Identi.ca

Then Ostatus came along, and that's where the Fediverse we know really started. GNUSocial (a descendant of Identi.ca), Friendica, possibly some other things. Hundreds of nodes.

Then Mastodon, first was using Ostatus then switced to ActivityPub, and everybody followed suit, creating the New Fediverse. As it stands, this Fediverse is the third version.

@drq
IOW, the federate-everything idea existed before the Fediverse?

@wolf480pl IOW, the Fediverse is a retroactive label. Kinda like "video games". Nobody knew how to call the network that was built by OMB, and then OStatus. Well, it's federated, it's universal, hence, the Fediverse.

@drq well IMO it isn't. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of invention.

@drq
I guess Fediverse has two saving graces here:
- It tends to gracefully degrade. Things may look like garbage, but in most cases they don't get silently dropped.
- You can usually click the link and view the post on its authoritative server, where it'll look as intended. Assuming it's public.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon.ml

Русская нода социальной сети "Мастодонт", части Fediverse - всемирной федерации социальных сетей. Зона общения, свободная от рекламы и шпионажа, теперь и в России.