Top-level
11 comments
The open social web, hmm. We have a lot of moderation and #fediblock in the #fediverse already, however, and might get more if/when large internet co's with a different value system than what's prevalent in the fediverse today connect. Personally I don't believe that unqualified "open" is what we want. I think we want "open for anybody who isn't out to screw us" or some (more polite) version of that ... @schizanon @mike yep, except the fediverse these days is more explicit that some โedgeโ decisions are made by the user themselves, some by instance operators/moderators, now with sharing block lists, arguably some decisions are made not at the edge any more. @schizanon but none of them called themselves โopen emailโ. So โopen social webโ has some terminology problems imho that email never had. @J12t it's just redundant: the "open" is implied in "web"
[DATA EXPUNGED]
@marqle Is it necessary that you and I, for example, agree on what "fairness" (or other fuzzy terms) are? Seems to me that there could be multiple definitions, and I sign up to one that resonates with me. Might be that level-0 protocol interop is always required, no funny embrace-extend-extinguish-extensions, but that's probably easier to define and agree on than then higher, more human levels. |
@J12t Hah. Great Q.
Depends on the audience. If they've already heard of Mastodon I start there and work up to Fediverse. I tend to stay away from decentralization to avoid the crypto feel unless I'm talking to someone very technical. I also often refer to all this as the open social web especially if I'm talking to people who witnessed the dawn of the web to begin with.