I have to say I don't agree with @fediforum who consider #Bluesky part of the #fediverse. Is Bluesky making any attempts to interoperate with other fedi services that I'm not aware of?

@sendung @fediforum

️ Completely agree. Since when does the Fediverse include Bluesky? Fediverse has always been about ActivityPub connected platforms. #Bluesky runs on a different protocol that has some interesting development activity but is still almost entirely centralized in one VC backed corporate company. That FediForum something called Fediverse Report is mostly about AT Protocol and Bluesky is confusing and kind of another example of usurping ActivityPub's mojo.

@sendung @fediforum

All that said, while the focus has lately been more on ATProtocol @LaurensHof does put in a lot of hard work covering ActivityPub too. It's just that grouping both under the Fediverse umbrella is incorrect and a disservice to the Fedi ecosystem. They call their ecosystem the ATmosphere. Maybe "ATmosphere Report" would be better name for a journal largely focused on Bluesky technology.

@mastodonmigration @sendung @LaurensHof The text on our home page could perhaps be improved. While some consider the entire hybrid network of AP and ATProto connected by fed.brid.gy to be the Fediverse, others do not and as a conference, we don't really want to take a position on that.

What if we rephrased it "The Fediverse, Mastodon and ActivityPub. The ATmosphere, Bluesky and AtProto. Bridges between them..."

@fediforum @mastodonmigration @sendung imho it's ok as shown above - I would argue with @mastodonmigration & @sendung that it doesn't "consider Bluesky to be a part of the Fediverse", it lists different topics to be talked about, and Bluesky *is shown as a separate topic*. 1) The Fediverse, Mastodon and ActivityPub, period. 2) Bluesky and AtProto.

Yeah. FediForum️ changed their focus this year and it's now "Moving the
Open Social Web Forward" and "brings together the leading thinkers and doers who build this new Open Social Web." So the wording is consistent with that. And Mastodon is the only non-corporate platform represented on the conference's advisory board, so only listing them and not any of the other ActivityPub platforms also seems consistent.

Then again, these days most people do think of the Fediverse as includng Bluesky. The only definition I know of that excludes it is if the narrow, gatekeeping definition that limits the Fediverse to ActivityPub-only (in contrast with its historical definitions that include multiple protocols) and then go on to ignore Bridgy Fed and Friendrica's definition. So FediForum could have continued to focus on the Fediverse and still included Bluesky and AT. I wrote more about the multiple definitions of the Fediverse and how it relates to Bluesky in https://privacy.thenexus.today/is-bluesky-part-of-todays-fediverse/

All that being said, "FediForum️" isn't a great name for an unconference focused on the Open Social Web, as opposed to one that focuses on "the Fediverse." So that's potentially something that will need to be addressed going forward ... but that's another story.

@mastodonmigration @sendung @LaurensHof @fediforum
@mackuba

@thenexusofprivacy @sendung @LaurensHof @fediforum @mackuba

Wow! Thank you. That is an impressive discussion of the subject. So according to this, 'Fediverse' means many different things to different people, and is sufficiently generic, that what is confusing is it's frequent use, indeed misuse, to describe just the constellation of ActivityPub connected apps and their users. What you call the 'ActivityWeb'.

more...

@thenexusofprivacy @sendung @LaurensHof @fediforum @mackuba

Take, for example, Daniel Supernault's new 'Fediverse' onboarding tool: https://fedidb.com/welcome. This clearly adopts the ActivityWeb version of the term Fediverse.

Guess the problem seems to be a lack of clarity and specificity, which creates confusion when the same word is applied to mean different things in different contexts. As Eugen points out, it either means ActivityPub (ActivityWeb) or looses any specific meaning.

more...

@thenexusofprivacy @sendung @LaurensHof @fediforum @mackuba

Decentralized social media is difficult enough to describe without the terms being nebulous and conflicting. Would argue that it is a benefit to all to try to nail down some words that do have specific meanings so they can be used to communicate and educate effectively.

more...

@thenexusofprivacy @sendung @LaurensHof @fediforum @mackuba

If, in fact, Fediverse (or Fediverses?) is a larger generic non-specific umbrella encompassing ActivityWeb, ATmosphere, etc. then actually people should stop using it where they actually mean only the ActivityWeb.

Of course, this is not going to happen, so it seems we will just muddle forward. However, it is not a benefit to the larger goal of advancing decentralized social media that this confusion in the basic terminology exists.

@thenexusofprivacy @sendung @LaurensHof @fediforum @mackuba

One more thought. Looking back at previous eras like networking and imagery/video compression what benefited these emerging technology initiatives greatly were the standards bodies' development of standard definitions and terms such that a lexicon could develop without endless debate on the meanings of the words being used.

My take is that different people use "the Fediverse" in different ways and its meaning changes over time and there isn't anything we can do about it. Agreed that it's one of the ways that decentralization makes things more complicated but oh well, it comes with the territory.

I do think there's value in defining things precisely -- I've spent a loooong time on the definitions in "there are many fediverses" -- but I also don't think everybody's going to adopt my definitions!

What you call the 'ActivityWeb'.

It was actually @deadsuperhero who called it ActivityWeb back in 2017 back when Fediverse generally meant Gnu Social (or mostly-Gnu Social)

"ActivityPub Fediverse" or "mostly-ActivityPub Fediverse" are the terms I tend to. use today.

@mastodonmigration @sendung @LaurensHof @fediforum @mackuba

@thenexusofprivacy @deadsuperhero @sendung @LaurensHof @fediforum @mackuba

Can you provide a link to your There Are Many Fediverses?

Edit: Is this a specific document or are you referencing the above mentioned "Is Bluesky..."?

My take is that different people use "the Fediverse" in different ways and its meaning changes over time and there isn't anything we can do about it. Agreed that it's one of the ways that decentralization makes things more complicated but oh well, it comes with the territory.

I do think there's value in defining things precisely -- I've spent a loooong time on the definitions in "there are many fediverses" -- but I also don't think everybody's going to adopt my definitions!

What you call the 'ActivityWeb'.

It was actually @deadsuperhero who called it ActivityWeb back in 2017 back when Fediverse generally meant Gnu Social (or mostly-Gnu Social)

"ActivityPub Fediverse" or "mostly-ActivityPub Fediverse" are the terms I tend to. use today.

@mastodonmigration @sendung @LaurensHof @fediforum @mackuba

@thenexusofprivacy @mastodonmigration

+1 on your article Jon

I'd go as far as to say conflicts about defining the network boundaries is an essential characteristic for any decentralised social network

My general position is that with a term as flexible as 'fediverse' I think its totally valid and good to just get to the core of "do we want to include this entity as part of the network or not", and that any arguments about technicals are just superficial

@thenexusofprivacy @mastodonmigration

I genuinely think that "bluesky is not part of the fediverse because I dont want it to be part of the fediverse (for cultural/social/technical/vibes reasons)" is a good argument, and any arguments about protocols or software lineages or whatever just kinda muddy the water

@laurenshof @thenexusofprivacy

The article is indeed terrific Jon. Super helpful, and it makes clear that the term has evolved over the years and is currently used by different people to mean several different things.

The question is if there is value going forward in trying to nail down a specific taxonomy for decentralized social media.

Would suggest that it is of great benefit to all stakeholders to develop a set of specific defined terms (Fediverse, ATmosphere, Fedi, federated, etc...).

@laurenshof @thenexusofprivacy

Also agree with Laurens that these definitions can be independent of the history and the technology itself to a degree. Going forward it is fine to clarify these terms based on what is best for advancing the entire decentralized social media ecosystem.

What seems like a problem however is the status quo where people use the words to mean different things in different contexts, some of which conflict with each other and generate confusion.

Agreed that it's a valid argument to exclude Bluesky (or anybody else) from somebody's definition of "the Fediverse" for cultural / social / technical / vibes reasons. That said, it's not easy to make an intellectually-consistent argument that includes Threads but excludes Bluesky. Then again I also didn't think it was easy to come up with an intellectually-consistent argument for including Wordpress but exclude Bluesky, and as a footnote in one of those articles discusses Oblomov proved me wrong.

The question is if there is value going forward in trying to nail down a specific taxonomy for decentralized social media.

For my own thinking, I've found it very valuable -- viewing things in terms of multiple fediverses, connected by bridges, really helps clarify a lot (including why so many ActivityPub loyalists want to impose their self-serving definition on others).

But I don't think there's going to be broad agreement on any specific meanings. Look at all the debate over "decentralized", where there's even a widely-cited original definition (Baran 1964) and an IETF RFC. So I really think the best that can be done in practice is for people to try to be explicit about the definitions they're using (and not assume others are using the same definition). Like I say it comes with the territory.

@mastodonmigration @laurenshof