Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.
-
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 -
@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@fediforum I could certainly run a session on this, as long as I have moderators to help.
-
@fediforum I could certainly run a session on this, as long as I have moderators to help.
@thisismissem we will make it happen!!
-
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 No offense to anyone that has made any protocol, but I don't give a shit which protocol it is as long as it's an open protocol we can access openly, freely, forever. I think the fear with AT Protocol is that Bsky might enshitiffy it? I don't know enough about AT to even know if that's possible.
-
@thisismissem No offense to anyone that has made any protocol, but I don't give a shit which protocol it is as long as it's an open protocol we can access openly, freely, forever. I think the fear with AT Protocol is that Bsky might enshitiffy it? I don't know enough about AT to even know if that's possible.
@firesidefedi yeah, one could argue that, but there's so many other people building in the AT Protocol ecosystem that it'd only affect maybe one part of the network, there already exists alternative AppViews, Clients, Relays, and PDS's, especially if we look at the wonderful work from the Blacksky team (blackskyweb.xyz)
-
@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.
It is inappropriate to create a "statements" directory in the repository, with this as the only item in it, making it seem as if it was an official SWICG statement.
Things like these are, at the very least, called a "draft" until they officially pass. You are doing your cause (to which I object anyway) no favor with this fishy activity.
-
@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.
@ikuturso @stefan @mastodonmigration @thisismissem
and?
if it enshittifies, people will simply migrate to other PDSes.
and those PDSes will start looking at different relays
the only thing i am concerned about is the appview thing, but i believe that deals with protocol content rather than any actual implementation (where the real nub of the control is)
-
@ikuturso @stefan @mastodonmigration @thisismissem
and?
if it enshittifies, people will simply migrate to other PDSes.
and those PDSes will start looking at different relays
the only thing i am concerned about is the appview thing, but i believe that deals with protocol content rather than any actual implementation (where the real nub of the control is)
@breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan @thisismissem
The problem is a matter of scale. There is no way for 99% of users to "simply" move anywhere.
-
It is inappropriate to create a "statements" directory in the repository, with this as the only item in it, making it seem as if it was an official SWICG statement.
Things like these are, at the very least, called a "draft" until they officially pass. You are doing your cause (to which I object anyway) no favor with this fishy activity.
@tuxwise @nik I had reason to believe it was fine, anyway, it's been taken down and replaced with this statement: https://github.com/swicg/general/blob/master/statements/2025-09-05-activitypub-and-atproto-discourse.md
-
@breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan @thisismissem
The problem is a matter of scale. There is no way for 99% of users to "simply" move anywhere.
@mastodonmigration @ikuturso @stefan @thisismissem
aye, there's the rub
even on mastodon, migrating to another server is hard.
you have to follow a 50 step process, create another account, then move all your stuff...
it would be hella nice to have a one-click button that simply moves all your shit to another server.
-
@breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan @thisismissem
The problem is a matter of scale. There is no way for 99% of users to "simply" move anywhere.
@mastodonmigration @breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan Blacksky already recently managed a mass migration away from Bluesky hosted PDS's for their community. Similar could happen if needed for other communities.
-
@mastodonmigration @ikuturso @stefan @thisismissem
aye, there's the rub
even on mastodon, migrating to another server is hard.
you have to follow a 50 step process, create another account, then move all your stuff...
it would be hella nice to have a one-click button that simply moves all your shit to another server.
@breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan @thisismissem
Yes, that would be nice.
-
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
Ya the thing I would like to see more than infighting is fedi apps learning how to behave like PDSes and bluesky learning how to ingest AP -
@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.
@ikuturso Yeah, neither one is perfect.
The first site has an open issue on GitHub to include other parts of the ATProto stack, hopefully that will be added soon.
https://github.com/ricci/distributed-social-networks/issues/1
-
@breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan @thisismissem
Yes, that would be nice.
@mastodonmigration @breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan this exists in the ATmosphere — https://tektite.cc/
and a demo video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SdmiCRYeZA
-
@mastodonmigration @breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan Blacksky already recently managed a mass migration away from Bluesky hosted PDS's for their community. Similar could happen if needed for other communities.
@thisismissem @breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan
Yes, the Blacksky migration was impressive. It still did not change the overall percentage distribution numbers very much. It seems like proponents of AT Protocol should welcome criticism of too much dominance of Bluesky PBC and support more independent Blacksky type efforts.
Why, if Bluesky is actually serious about wanting AT Protocol to be decentralized, is there not more overt support for moving the numbers in a truly meaningful way.
-
@thisismissem @breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan
Yes, the Blacksky migration was impressive. It still did not change the overall percentage distribution numbers very much. It seems like proponents of AT Protocol should welcome criticism of too much dominance of Bluesky PBC and support more independent Blacksky type efforts.
Why, if Bluesky is actually serious about wanting AT Protocol to be decentralized, is there not more overt support for moving the numbers in a truly meaningful way.
@mastodonmigration @breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan there's also NorthSky in Canada that's building on Blacksky's work, and I'm sure there'll be something similar in the EU too
-
@mastodonmigration @breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan Blacksky already recently managed a mass migration away from Bluesky hosted PDS's for their community. Similar could happen if needed for other communities.
@thisismissem did they manage to get away from the did:plc dependency? Assuming not since there is no way to migrate those away from the PBC identity...
-
@mastodonmigration @ikuturso @stefan @thisismissem
aye, there's the rub
even on mastodon, migrating to another server is hard.
you have to follow a 50 step process, create another account, then move all your stuff...
it would be hella nice to have a one-click button that simply moves all your shit to another server.
[email protected] I agree on the one hand, but simple and secure are hard to have together.
I'm not saying the Mastodon migration system can't be improved however...
-
@thisismissem did they manage to get away from the did:plc dependency? Assuming not since there is no way to migrate those away from the PBC identity...
@ikuturso @mastodonmigration @breathOfLife @stefan there's plenty of DID methods that have been developed; There are some people using did:web, there's also did:webvh — but there's definitely still more work to do in this space.
I think ActivityPub could theoretically adopt did:web or did:webvh as an alternative to webfinger.
