The "protocol wars" of new #openweb protocols, including #bluesky, #Nostr, and #activertypub, am suggesting that bridges between them are a good solution to the current issues. All of these protocols are #4opens and #openweb native, which is a positive development. However, the cultures of these protocols are different and this can create messiness in the discussions.
I advocate for a grassroots #DIY culture and urge people to focus on building bridges rather than adding to the mess.
Patrick, the Linux guy
in reply to vagabond • • •Bridges are the diplomatic solution, but when you look at the protocol specs, you quickly find that they are deliberately designed to be incompatible to make intereroparability technically impossible.
home.social/@raccoon/110300577…
vagabond reshared this.
vagabond
in reply to Patrick, the Linux guy • • •@raccoon so we ignore this mess and push the content across with a bridge - we make the protocols into "dumb pipes" this is the path of the #OMN
I understand this is the best of the BAD solutions, but it's easy and most impotently "permissionless" so we can seed diversity. From this we might get somewhere not #blocking
Patrick, the Linux guy
in reply to vagabond • • •Well, the problem is that ActivityPub is event driven: something happens -> Agents send each other notifications about it.
This means, a bridge would have to be build from both sides. I doubt, this is what Blusky wants.
vagabond
in reply to Patrick, the Linux guy • • •the key part is #4opens we don't have to ask its #FOSS and yes not saying you are not right, the current non federated #bluesky would be pointless.
#Nostr all ready has a working 2 way bridge to #activertpub, I am transparently reading and replying to #Nostr users.
socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/…
Lets talk about the protocol wars
SocialHubvagabond
in reply to vagabond • • •Greater cooperation and collaboration between the different communities involved in developing #openweb protocols
Hamishcampbell