Re:The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of s*
by moojd on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @11:16AM
(#35888606)
Even framing it as 'account portability' is missing the point. I want to own my identity and take it with me anywhere. I shouldn't need to transfer anything, its mine. This model is fundamentally incompatible with how ActivityPub works (no, running your own server is not the same thing as decoupling identity from the concept of a server itself.) Could that change in the future? Maybe, but not without prior art. Even if you think @proto, farcaster, ssb, nostr, or others are doomed, we should be applauding them for attempting to push the needle forward.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of s*
by vidarh on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @11:33AM
(#35888872)
It's not incompatible with how ActivityPub works at all.
The ActivityPub spec says that object id's should be https URI's, not that they must. The underlying ActivityStreams spec just requires them to be unique.
All that's needed to provide full portability without a "transfer" is for an implementation to use URI's to e.g. DID's, or any other distributed URI scheme. Optionally, if you want full backwards compatibility, point the id to a proxy and add a separate URI until there's broader buyin.
Re:The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of s*
by Ferkv on Thursday May 11, 2023 @04:27PM
(#35907937)
> the main challenge there is not the spec but getting buying from at least Mastodon
Which is why a new competing protocol is a good way to push for change.
You want Microsoft to become more open? Then start promoting Linux.