Some folks have gotten themselves together as something they’re calling the Social Web Foundation, and I’ll cut to the chase: this is an attempt by ActivityPub partisans to rebrand the confusing “fediverse” terminology, and in the process, regardless of intent, shit on everything else that’s been the social web going back twenty-five years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 10 points 1 month ago (10 children)

What's a better protocol for a social web?

[–] erlend_sh@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

His point is there is no one protocol for the social web. The (open) social web is built on a pluriverse of protocols, like rss, email, irc, matrix, activitypub, atproto…

[–] mike_wooskey@lemmy.thewooskeys.com 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Applause for the term "pluriverse" (did you coin it?).

And a standing ovation for the alliterative phrase "pluriverse of protocols".

[–] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I was the first person to post on the pluriverse in 2008.

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I was there 👆🏼

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

At age 6, I was born without a face.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I don't get that from the article. And I mean it's not a "web" if it's not interconnected, is it?

Things have shifted a bit in the last many years. Now almost no one reads blogs anymore. They want doom-scrolling and interaction. And even the old school nerds moved away from RSS, Mail and IRC. I also liked some Linux forums, but I feel it got more quiet there during the last years. Mostly to the benefit of proprietary platforms like Discord and such. But I don't thing they're very social, as in open and giving freedom to the people...

load more comments (7 replies)