https://cosocial.ca/@evan/110742220239326287

> This applies to other one-off protocols: Nostr, Veilid, whatever.

> Standards are collaborative, not competitive.

> It is not advantageous to have a thriving marketplace of standards. It hurts everyone: users, developers, society.

> Don't launch new social standards that aren't based on AP and backwards-compatible.

This _can_ be true, but "don't create a new standard, even if the current standard isn't working for you, or if using it in practice requires conforming to a specific implementation's interpretation instead of the standard itself" is mostly bad advice.

I'll take Nostr as an example, but AT Protocol could also follow.

ActivityPub itself is only useful to the extent that one implements only a specific Mastodon-compatible subset and adds specific extra-protocol stuff for Mastodon compatibility. AP itself is not implemented as a protocol without the Masto-ware anywhere. And AP as specified requires a server, so non-server based social can't depend on it.

Nostr is a much simpler specification--or at least it was (NIP-01). As more NIPs are issued, it becomes more complex to implement. And as Nostriches are fond of mentioning, Nostr is a little better at routing around those who'd prevent someone from communicating with their followers / contacts. Not that Nostr's "just use another relay" offers anywhere near the censorship resistance that people claim. If someone hasn't already established alternate relays (or an out-of-band way to notify of relay changes), a large-scale #nostrblock could be just as devastating as #fediblock can be.

Bluesky's AT Protocol similarly came about because they didn't believe that ActivityPub (as implemented by Mastodon) could meet their needs. See https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/3-6-2022-a-self-authenticating-social-protocol So why would they use it anyway? That doesn't make sense.

> While each of these [protocols from a list that includes ActivityPub] are successful in their own right, none of them fully met the goals we had for a network that enables global long-term public conversations at scale.

Honestly, Evan. You did this yourself when you bifurcated the OStatus Fediverse into OStatus and Pump.io. Years later, some of the people who left are just now returning to federated socnets. Why would you deny others what you yourself took advantage of to nearly destroy the existing network?