Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.
Uncategorized
67
Beiträge
18
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
@mastodonmigration Apologies for butting in, but I think https://atp.fyi/network does a better job at showing how decentralized Bluesky/ATProto really is, compared to this site you shared, which, as it explains, only takes PDSs into account.
@stefan that visualization isn't particularly great at showing how (de)centralized it is though.
Things are not to scale in it: Single user PDS is as much as 1/50th the area of a Bluesky Corporate PDS with almost 400,000 users.
-
Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.
Yesterday at the Social Web CG meeting (the group that maintains the ActivityPub and related specifications), I proposed releasing a statement that counters the narrative that one of these protocols must win, when both protocols can co-exist and have a lot to learn from each other.
The statement has been co-signed by various members of both Social Web CG, SocialCG, and the AT Protocol community.
“We do not win by tearing each other down, which only emboldens and empowers those who do not want either protocol to succeed.”
“Arguing between us only emboldens those that seek to derail and destroy efforts to build an open social web.”
You can read the full statement here:
https://writings.thisismissem.social/statement-on-discourse-about-activitypub-and-at-protocol/This was originally in the swicg/general repository, and you can learn about that here:
https://github.com/swicg/general/blob/master/statements/2025-09-05-activitypub-and-atproto-discourse.md@thisismissem Apparently, the group did not agree on the proposal, and the statement was published in the group's name without consensus.
This hurts our values more than the original disagreement!
-
@thisismissem Apparently, the group did not agree on the proposal, and the statement was published in the group's name without consensus.
This hurts our values more than the original disagreement!
@nik I'd received multiple people saying yes, and been granted approval to merge. As it's not a specification change, the 14 day CFC did not look like it applied, and it did not need all members to agree or co-sign.
-
@nik I'd received multiple people saying yes, and been granted approval to merge. As it's not a specification change, the 14 day CFC did not look like it applied, and it did not need all members to agree or co-sign.
@thisismissem Very obviously, some CG members did not get a chance to object, and some who did object were ignored.
But as I am myself only a passive observer of the SocialCG, I will not go into more detail – I just felt followers here should be aware that the statement is not a group publication with full consensus.
-
@ahltorp no they don't, it's possible to run a relay for like $30 / month now. PDS's are much cheaper than that to run, and can run on like $5 infrastructure.
You can also move all your data should your PDS shutdown or go rogue, with the Fediverse today, you can only really move your relationships, not your posts, though efforts on that are underway.
@thisismissem Then I repeat my question: Why are freeourfeeds raising $30M to break the lock-in if there is no lock-in?
I’m not against people working on making AT protocol actually useful, but it so easily turns into an argument for “there are no problems with using Bluesky”. Why should I be positive about AT protocol when the only thing it does in practice is shit? Because that’s what you’re asking me to be (the “don’t argue” bit).
-
@thisismissem I would add that both protocols support use cases that the other protocol has a hard time addressing. ActivityPub, for example, is much better at point to point communication where no third party overhears what is happening. ATproto, for example, can be used to build “global trending” or a global index much more easily.
I would not be surprised if at the end of they, the open social web would simultaneously end up using both, in a complementary fashion.I hope not. 'Global trending' requires a central authority with a view into EVERY message on the system. And the last two decades have convinced me ANYTHING requiring such centralized access is dangerous and will be misused.
Federation is the ONLY answer if want you want is something the users control. Because, in worst case, we can fall back to whitelists instead of blacklists and tunnel the messages.
Have we learned NOTHING?
-
@thisismissem Then I repeat my question: Why are freeourfeeds raising $30M to break the lock-in if there is no lock-in?
I’m not against people working on making AT protocol actually useful, but it so easily turns into an argument for “there are no problems with using Bluesky”. Why should I be positive about AT protocol when the only thing it does in practice is shit? Because that’s what you’re asking me to be (the “don’t argue” bit).
@ahltorp organisations try to raise crazy amounts all the time, especially when they thing there is sufficient hype to do so.
I haven't seen particularly much from anyone at FreeOurFeeds, and I don't think they are representative of the work going on in the ATmosphere.
-
I hope not. 'Global trending' requires a central authority with a view into EVERY message on the system. And the last two decades have convinced me ANYTHING requiring such centralized access is dangerous and will be misused.
Federation is the ONLY answer if want you want is something the users control. Because, in worst case, we can fall back to whitelists instead of blacklists and tunnel the messages.
Have we learned NOTHING?
@jackwilliambell @j12t so that's the thing, with the ActivityPub API and you publishing to your outbox, and then that notifying others that you have, it's the same as current, but with your data in your control.
You don't need your PDS / outbox to participate in anything global, but it's certainly possible — you'd also have more control than you currently do with the existing Relays that bounce messages around heavily.
-
@jackwilliambell @j12t so that's the thing, with the ActivityPub API and you publishing to your outbox, and then that notifying others that you have, it's the same as current, but with your data in your control.
You don't need your PDS / outbox to participate in anything global, but it's certainly possible — you'd also have more control than you currently do with the existing Relays that bounce messages around heavily.
I'm saying I don't want to participate in anything global. I'm saying I want a protocol designed to be actively HOSTILE to participating in anything global.
Maybe others still yearn to suck from the teats of some centralized authority, but I've learned my lesson and I'm not going back. I'd rather not have social media at all than regress to a state where the protocols can serve a profit motive or an authoritarian.
Even if it is tarted up to look like something different.
-
@ahltorp organisations try to raise crazy amounts all the time, especially when they thing there is sufficient hype to do so.
I haven't seen particularly much from anyone at FreeOurFeeds, and I don't think they are representative of the work going on in the ATmosphere.
@thisismissem But they *are* extremely representative of what is happening in the AT protocol space. It doesn’t matter if you like them or not. It doesn’t even matter whether they’re actually doing anything concrete or not (I suspect they aren’t).
From my perspective, supporting what FreeOurFeeds and Bluesky are doing is *exactly* what you’re asking us to support. Why would anyone even care about AT protocol if it weren’t for Bluesky?
-
I'm saying I don't want to participate in anything global. I'm saying I want a protocol designed to be actively HOSTILE to participating in anything global.
Maybe others still yearn to suck from the teats of some centralized authority, but I've learned my lesson and I'm not going back. I'd rather not have social media at all than regress to a state where the protocols can serve a profit motive or an authoritarian.
Even if it is tarted up to look like something different.
@jackwilliambell @j12t then you literally do not need to. You can choose not to federate with anything "global" (whatever that would mean)
-
@thisismissem But they *are* extremely representative of what is happening in the AT protocol space. It doesn’t matter if you like them or not. It doesn’t even matter whether they’re actually doing anything concrete or not (I suspect they aren’t).
From my perspective, supporting what FreeOurFeeds and Bluesky are doing is *exactly* what you’re asking us to support. Why would anyone even care about AT protocol if it weren’t for Bluesky?
@ahltorp I never said anything about liking them or not, I said I haven't seen much from them, and consequently they are not representative, especially when there's so many other people doing amazing work within the ATmosphere.
-
@jackwilliambell @j12t then you literally do not need to. You can choose not to federate with anything "global" (whatever that would mean)
As I do. And, let me be frank here: I think anyone who *does not* is a fool and will eventually rue that decision.
Maybe I'm the outlier here. But I'm on the Fedi for a reason. I run my own server, for a reason. And I DO NOT want to see ActivityPub changed to accommodate global authorities, nor do I want 'bridges' to centralized systems – of any stripe.
And I will continue to speak out against those who do.
You, of course, may choose to block me. But that's the beauty!
-
As I do. And, let me be frank here: I think anyone who *does not* is a fool and will eventually rue that decision.
Maybe I'm the outlier here. But I'm on the Fedi for a reason. I run my own server, for a reason. And I DO NOT want to see ActivityPub changed to accommodate global authorities, nor do I want 'bridges' to centralized systems – of any stripe.
And I will continue to speak out against those who do.
You, of course, may choose to block me. But that's the beauty!
@jackwilliambell @j12t I'm not saying that it would be changed to support global authorities (though those already exist arguably), I'm saying that you can continue to have your own server and do whatever you want.
But I'm also saying that your server does not need to be your identity, and that data and identity can be separated from applications.
-
I'm saying I don't want to participate in anything global. I'm saying I want a protocol designed to be actively HOSTILE to participating in anything global.
Maybe others still yearn to suck from the teats of some centralized authority, but I've learned my lesson and I'm not going back. I'd rather not have social media at all than regress to a state where the protocols can serve a profit motive or an authoritarian.
Even if it is tarted up to look like something different.
@jackwilliambell @thisismissem i for my part like the idea that when protests break out in Tahrir Square, I can subscribe to a global feed that gives me an idea of what is going on … certainly a much better idea than if I turn on the TV. I have that use case maybe once a year, but I’m glad it exists.
-
@jackwilliambell @thisismissem i for my part like the idea that when protests break out in Tahrir Square, I can subscribe to a global feed that gives me an idea of what is going on … certainly a much better idea than if I turn on the TV. I have that use case maybe once a year, but I’m glad it exists.
> "I … like the idea that when protests break out in Tahrir Square, I can subscribe to a global feed that gives me an idea of what is going on…"
I think the fact you would automatically trust such a global feed is incredibly problematic.
I'd rather trust people. Individually. And even then my trust only extends so far.
I had a similarly long discussion yesterday about Epistemology. There is a sense in which I am continuing that here today.
-
> "I … like the idea that when protests break out in Tahrir Square, I can subscribe to a global feed that gives me an idea of what is going on…"
I think the fact you would automatically trust such a global feed is incredibly problematic.
I'd rather trust people. Individually. And even then my trust only extends so far.
I had a similarly long discussion yesterday about Epistemology. There is a sense in which I am continuing that here today.
@jackwilliambell @thisismissem who said “trust”? I just want to have it. The more the better.
-
@jackwilliambell @thisismissem who said “trust”? I just want to have it. The more the better.
> "who said “trust”? I just want to have it. The more the better."
So you're fine with, for example, an algorithm subtly manipulating the information stream to gaslight you?
Because EXACTLY THAT has happened, is happening, and will (eventually) happen to any feed controlled by a central authority. No matter who the authority is.
I'd rather take a stochastic chance of getting as much different information as possible from non-centralized sources.
-
> "who said “trust”? I just want to have it. The more the better."
So you're fine with, for example, an algorithm subtly manipulating the information stream to gaslight you?
Because EXACTLY THAT has happened, is happening, and will (eventually) happen to any feed controlled by a central authority. No matter who the authority is.
I'd rather take a stochastic chance of getting as much different information as possible from non-centralized sources.
@jackwilliambell @thisismissem you are conflating two things. The existence of global feeds that aggregate world wide != a *single* global feed managed in a non-democratic manner.
But signing off from this thread now. -
Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.
Yesterday at the Social Web CG meeting (the group that maintains the ActivityPub and related specifications), I proposed releasing a statement that counters the narrative that one of these protocols must win, when both protocols can co-exist and have a lot to learn from each other.
The statement has been co-signed by various members of both Social Web CG, SocialCG, and the AT Protocol community.
“We do not win by tearing each other down, which only emboldens and empowers those who do not want either protocol to succeed.”
“Arguing between us only emboldens those that seek to derail and destroy efforts to build an open social web.”
You can read the full statement here:
https://writings.thisismissem.social/statement-on-discourse-about-activitypub-and-at-protocol/This was originally in the swicg/general repository, and you can learn about that here:
https://github.com/swicg/general/blob/master/statements/2025-09-05-activitypub-and-atproto-discourse.md@thisismissem This would make a great session at the next FediForum next month! If we can keep the discussion civil
Any plans to run such a session? Let us know if we can help. https://fediforum.org
