|
Top-level
@J12t I tend to use “social web” to mean the broadest concept of open social infrastructure, and “fediverse” when I’m thinking more concretely about ActivityPub. The IndieWeb protocols/formats represent a different corner of the broader social web. As a marketing term, though, I’d probably always say “social web” in any of those contexts… mostly because my instinct is that “fediverse” is awkward and far too nerdy to get mainstream adoption. 4 comments
 @davepeck Fediverse functionality today is basically follow, post, reply, like etc.: a fairly small set of features along the lines of Twitter. When you think “social web”, do you think it’s the same set of features (but maybe using also protocols other than ActivityPub), or do you think the social web has / should have more features? If so, which? @J12t Hrm… I guess I use “social web” as a broad umbrella term to encompass both today’s functionality (fediverse, indieweb, etc.) and tomorrow’s potential. I have no doubt we’ll see new capabilities both at the protocol layer and above. I do think the stagnation of email protocols (IMAP, maybe SMTP, etc) is worth considering, though: it becomes harder to stretch the underlying protocols if there are 500lbs gorillas (Gmail… maybe Threads?) that aren’t invested in stretching themselves. |
Gregory's Server
@davepeck Same functionality though even if different protocols, or also additional functionality?