@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..."?

Sure, "There are many fediverses" is currently a section in https://privacy.thenexus.today/bluesky-atmosphere-fediverse/#there-are-many-fediverses -- one of these days I'll make it a post in its own right. Hopefully the link will take you there directly, if not just search for it.

@mastodonmigration @deadsuperhero @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

@thenexusofprivacy @laurenshof

Regarding Threads, Bluesky, Wordpress, Ghost, etc. inclusion exclusion. Seems terminology should address differentiation between native AP, AP attached, AP bridged. Also whether communications are one directional or full duplex.

For instance Threads is attached, unidirectional whereas Bluesky is bridged, duplex. WordPress is attached, duplex. Mastodon, Pixelfed etc. are native. These words are just for example purposes.

@thenexusofprivacy @laurenshof

Regarding getting everyone to agree. Yeah, that's not going to happen, but laying down a marker is a start. If we could get some agreement on a proposed set of terms and spell it out in a nice document it might generate some momentum. People might start using the definitions if it helps them better and more succinctly communicate. Even generating discussions on the subject would be a benefit, so long as they didn't devolve into arguing.

Well I've laid down my marker! And I agree that it would be more useful if it were a separate page to point people to.

Still, I don't think there's going to be agreement on it, and at least from my perspective it's not worth investing energy in trying to get that to happen -- and there's no way to generate discussion without it devolving into arguing. There's too much at stake -- power, ego, money, etc. Do you really think that (no matter how nicely it's laid out) people who see ActivityPub as their life's work or people who have a career stake in ActivityPub's success are going to accept viewing it as no longer the center of the world? Or that people pushing the Open Social Web are going to agree that it's a surveillance-capitalism term that counters the Fediverse's historical critique of openness? etc etc etc

In terms of specific terminology, not sure I see the difference between "attached" vs "bridged". "Threads Fediverse" (or whatever they call) it is just as much of a bridge as Bridgy Fed. And one-way vs two-way is an interesting distinction, but it's not all-or-nothing; both Threads Fediverse and Bridgy Fed are partially two-way (and for that matter so is Mastodon/Lemmy, it's going to be the case whenever there's a funcationlity or implementation mismatch).

@mastodonmigration @laurenshof