Have you read https://indieweb.org/monoculture ? According to that article, systems like #hubzilla, #gnusocial, #diaspora might classify as monocultures that fail to interoperate with other systems, and force everybody to run the same software on their servers. Thoughts on this?
PS: I am aware that gnusocial does have a level of interoperability with other similar projects. But, I have no idea about diaspora and hubzilla.
@arunisaac hubzilla came from Friendica, and Friendica interoperates with a lot of things. What was found was that the price for interoperability was a broken privacy model.
What's missing for all of these things is an open standard protocol for private and public communications. I think that was suggested at the very beginning of the Diaspora project (define a protocol first, then build something around it), but that's not the way they went.
The #indieweb uses #microformats such as h-entry and h-card to facilitate inter-operation between websites. I like the idea, and am beginning to implement it on my blog. https://indieweb.org/POSSE
I notice that #gnusocial is marked up with these microformats. #hubzilla, I haven't tried yet.
@strypey @arunisaac I think there has been some attempt at a W3C standard, but I know that Mike McGirvin (Hubzilla) has no faith in that. Anything implemented needs to be able to define which users can see or interact with what content, otherwise you end up with systems which are public only but of no value for private communications.
@strypey @bob @clacke @arunisaac @mike It's a logical approach that could easily be added to all existing Ostatus implementations and would solve the problem. I don't see what's wrong with it.
@strypey @arunisaac @bob @clacke @mike half of ostatus is optional already... Oh well, whatever people will actually implement will be the de facto standard, anyway.
I like #IndieWeb too. At this point, it seems to be primarily a developer's playground. But when more CMSs and publishing platforms support the IndieWeb #microformats, it might be more accessible for lay people. In fact, I think there already is an IndieWeb plugin for #WordPress, and even an IndieWeb native #CMS called #Known.https://withknown.com/
Unix has a 'public' (e.g. 'others') bit. Are you suggesting that Unix should scrap this or make everything public; because of the conflict with trying to provide working permissions?
Yes, you certainly need to work harder on your security when you mix public and private in the same system. That doesn't mean you have to limit the functionality. You just need to fix the bugs and over time bake the permissions into the 'kernel' of your app so that it is harder for kiddies in userland to screw them up.
The way that these W3C social initiatives have played out is that they start by mandating a protocol to solve everybody's problems. Everybody rubber stamps the protocol and then we start building applications based on that protocol. What they're missing is the first step - defining the problems that need to be solved. So far we're on about the 5th or 6th attempt to define a protocol to send messages back and forth. We've been sending messages back and forth since the 70s - it isn't that hard. Defining how you interact with privacy and permissions and *differences in permission models* is bloody hard. Every project has a different permission model. This is where the W3C needs to start if they ever want to be taken seriously. It's entirely possible (as we've discovered) that the standard protocols don't cut it when faced with these requirements. You need a different protocol which is desig…