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.

@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.

@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.

@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?..

@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 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.

Follow

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

@lanodan

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 0

@drq @lanodan
in that case, pre-SMTP email was heterogenous.

@wolf480pl Why you think so? There was really not a lot you could do with computers back then. E-mail is for one thing only - sending and receiving mail. So, homogenous still.

@lanodan

@drq @wolf480pl Wouldn't be surprised to learn it was more homogenous than the weird set of extensions that we have today with SMTP.
IIRC it was UUCP-based and would basically just be copying files around.

@lanodan @drq
until you got to someone's campus network, then it'd go over whatever protocol they had there

@wolf480pl Internal details rarely matter. And you're splitting hairs at this point. We could go on all day.

@lanodan

@drq @lanodan
what else can I do when you make a post so fuzzy it's impossible to disprove because the definitions are so flexible and arbitrary?

@wolf480pl Not at all. Pre-DNS E-mail you had to resort to is not like Fediverse neither in form nor in function.

So, my point that the Fediverse is the first of its own kind (and I want there to be some name for this kind, because I'm feeling hopeful that more and better ones are on their way) still stands.

@lanodan

@drq @lanodan well ok it's a different kind of heterogenity.

As I said elsethread, if you want an example of media-type homogenity, there's MIME, 1996, but I suppose media-type homogenity is not what you mean either.

I still don't fully understand what you mean by "like Fediverse", in particular what's so new and exciting about it.

I guess you're right, this conversation isn't going anywhere. Sorry for wasting your time.

@drq @lanodan
it had many different implementations, and spanned different protocols, using different address formats.

So not homogenous at all.

But ok, let's say we want heterogenity in the sense of being able to exchange different media types.

How about MIME?

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.