@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