Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.
-
Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.
Yesterday at the Social Web CG meeting (the group that maintains the ActivityPub and related specifications), I proposed releasing a statement that counters the narrative that one of these protocols must win, when both protocols can co-exist and have a lot to learn from each other.
The statement has been co-signed by various members of both Social Web CG, SocialCG, and the AT Protocol community.
“We do not win by tearing each other down, which only emboldens and empowers those who do not want either protocol to succeed.”
“Arguing between us only emboldens those that seek to derail and destroy efforts to build an open social web.”
You can read the full statement here:
https://github.com/swicg/general/blob/master/statements/2025-09-05-activitypub-and-atproto-discourse.md@thisismissem I signed this document, as folks can see. My main motivation for doing so is to call for shared efforts to protect emerging, noncorporate social media from being destroyed through state regulations. Currently, that means age verification laws, but of course there have been other proposed or enacted laws that threaten the emergence of alternative social media.
1/2
-
This is fine. Open protocols are inherently agnostic. The independent efforts on AT Protocol are to be commended, and it may be that AT Protocol has some inherent advantages over ActivityPub. Hopefully this is not interpreted as an attempt to stifle discussion of the current overwhelming dominance of a single US corporation on AT Protocol, making it at this time for all intents a purposes a defacto highly centralized network.
@mastodonmigration Apologies for butting in, but I think https://atp.fyi/network does a better job at showing how decentralized Bluesky/ATProto really is, compared to this site you shared, which, as it explains, only takes PDSs into account.
-
@thisismissem I signed this document, as folks can see. My main motivation for doing so is to call for shared efforts to protect emerging, noncorporate social media from being destroyed through state regulations. Currently, that means age verification laws, but of course there have been other proposed or enacted laws that threaten the emergence of alternative social media.
1/2
@thisismissem In Canada, as @af3marti is documenting, there are many ActivityPub-based systems. There is also an ATProto project, a co-op called NorthSky, building on the work of BlackSky. Also in Canada, there is a growing call for age verification laws -- the same sorts of laws that are causing problems around the world, from Australia to the UK to the US (the Mississippi case). Debates about protocols are fine, but they should not distract from the dangers of corporate and state dominance. /2
-
@mastodonmigration right, but you've been given factual information that shows that not all of the network is centralised and that there's many efforts outside of Bluesky PBC, yet you keep going on about it.
We could talk about the centralisation of fediverse software implementations, too, because that doesn't necessarily look great either, for example Mastodon accounts for over 70% of the monthly active users within the ActivityPub ecosystem.
(source: https://fedidb.com/software?vi=list&st=active / https://fedidb.com/ )
Many moderators and server operators are really at the mercy of whatever Mastodon does or doesn't want to ship. Is that decentralisation?
We can agree to disagree.
The issue is the degree of centralization because that dictates the power of the dominant player to assert control. This issue, as you point out, is also a concern, to a lesser, but still very significant extent, for the ActivityPub Fediverse.
As proponents of open distributed systems we should be concerned about concentrations of technology, power and the potential to assert outsized influence wherever they occur in open networks.
-
@mastodonmigration Apologies for butting in, but I think https://atp.fyi/network does a better job at showing how decentralized Bluesky/ATProto really is, compared to this site you shared, which, as it explains, only takes PDSs into account.
Appreciate the link. These kinds of ground truth analytics are important for framing the discussion and establishing objectives for the future.
-
@damon I can imagine much worse things than blue states and red states defederating their social media platforms … but I get your point!
@j12t of course but that’s not great at all. We are colonies not states and if ActivityPub was dominant it would be a much larger issue than you are considering -
@mastodonmigration Apologies for butting in, but I think https://atp.fyi/network does a better job at showing how decentralized Bluesky/ATProto really is, compared to this site you shared, which, as it explains, only takes PDSs into account.
@stefan that visualization isn't particularly great at showing how (de)centralized it is though.
Things are not to scale in it: Single user PDS is as much as 1/50th the area of a Bluesky Corporate PDS with almost 400,000 users.
-
Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.
Yesterday at the Social Web CG meeting (the group that maintains the ActivityPub and related specifications), I proposed releasing a statement that counters the narrative that one of these protocols must win, when both protocols can co-exist and have a lot to learn from each other.
The statement has been co-signed by various members of both Social Web CG, SocialCG, and the AT Protocol community.
“We do not win by tearing each other down, which only emboldens and empowers those who do not want either protocol to succeed.”
“Arguing between us only emboldens those that seek to derail and destroy efforts to build an open social web.”
You can read the full statement here:
https://github.com/swicg/general/blob/master/statements/2025-09-05-activitypub-and-atproto-discourse.md@thisismissem Apparently, the group did not agree on the proposal, and the statement was published in the group's name without consensus.
This hurts our values more than the original disagreement!
-
@thisismissem Apparently, the group did not agree on the proposal, and the statement was published in the group's name without consensus.
This hurts our values more than the original disagreement!
@nik I'd received multiple people saying yes, and been granted approval to merge. As it's not a specification change, the 14 day CFC did not look like it applied, and it did not need all members to agree or co-sign.
-
@nik I'd received multiple people saying yes, and been granted approval to merge. As it's not a specification change, the 14 day CFC did not look like it applied, and it did not need all members to agree or co-sign.
@thisismissem Very obviously, some CG members did not get a chance to object, and some who did object were ignored.
But as I am myself only a passive observer of the SocialCG, I will not go into more detail – I just felt followers here should be aware that the statement is not a group publication with full consensus.
-
@ahltorp no they don't, it's possible to run a relay for like $30 / month now. PDS's are much cheaper than that to run, and can run on like $5 infrastructure.
You can also move all your data should your PDS shutdown or go rogue, with the Fediverse today, you can only really move your relationships, not your posts, though efforts on that are underway.
@thisismissem Then I repeat my question: Why are freeourfeeds raising $30M to break the lock-in if there is no lock-in?
I’m not against people working on making AT protocol actually useful, but it so easily turns into an argument for “there are no problems with using Bluesky”. Why should I be positive about AT protocol when the only thing it does in practice is shit? Because that’s what you’re asking me to be (the “don’t argue” bit).
-
Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.
Yesterday at the Social Web CG meeting (the group that maintains the ActivityPub and related specifications), I proposed releasing a statement that counters the narrative that one of these protocols must win, when both protocols can co-exist and have a lot to learn from each other.
The statement has been co-signed by various members of both Social Web CG, SocialCG, and the AT Protocol community.
“We do not win by tearing each other down, which only emboldens and empowers those who do not want either protocol to succeed.”
“Arguing between us only emboldens those that seek to derail and destroy efforts to build an open social web.”
You can read the full statement here:
https://github.com/swicg/general/blob/master/statements/2025-09-05-activitypub-and-atproto-discourse.md@thisismissem This would make a great session at the next FediForum next month! If we can keep the discussion civil
Any plans to run such a session? Let us know if we can help. https://fediforum.org -
@thisismissem This would make a great session at the next FediForum next month! If we can keep the discussion civil
Any plans to run such a session? Let us know if we can help. https://fediforum.org@fediforum I could certainly run a session on this, as long as I have moderators to help.
-
@fediforum I could certainly run a session on this, as long as I have moderators to help.
@thisismissem we will make it happen!!
-
Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.
Yesterday at the Social Web CG meeting (the group that maintains the ActivityPub and related specifications), I proposed releasing a statement that counters the narrative that one of these protocols must win, when both protocols can co-exist and have a lot to learn from each other.
The statement has been co-signed by various members of both Social Web CG, SocialCG, and the AT Protocol community.
“We do not win by tearing each other down, which only emboldens and empowers those who do not want either protocol to succeed.”
“Arguing between us only emboldens those that seek to derail and destroy efforts to build an open social web.”
You can read the full statement here:
https://github.com/swicg/general/blob/master/statements/2025-09-05-activitypub-and-atproto-discourse.md@thisismissem No offense to anyone that has made any protocol, but I don't give a shit which protocol it is as long as it's an open protocol we can access openly, freely, forever. I think the fear with AT Protocol is that Bsky might enshitiffy it? I don't know enough about AT to even know if that's possible.
-
@thisismissem No offense to anyone that has made any protocol, but I don't give a shit which protocol it is as long as it's an open protocol we can access openly, freely, forever. I think the fear with AT Protocol is that Bsky might enshitiffy it? I don't know enough about AT to even know if that's possible.
@firesidefedi yeah, one could argue that, but there's so many other people building in the AT Protocol ecosystem that it'd only affect maybe one part of the network, there already exists alternative AppViews, Clients, Relays, and PDS's, especially if we look at the wonderful work from the Blacksky team (blackskyweb.xyz)
-
@nik I'd received multiple people saying yes, and been granted approval to merge. As it's not a specification change, the 14 day CFC did not look like it applied, and it did not need all members to agree or co-sign.
It is inappropriate to create a "statements" directory in the repository, with this as the only item in it, making it seem as if it was an official SWICG statement.
Things like these are, at the very least, called a "draft" until they officially pass. You are doing your cause (to which I object anyway) no favor with this fishy activity.
-
@stefan that visualization isn't particularly great at showing how (de)centralized it is though.
Things are not to scale in it: Single user PDS is as much as 1/50th the area of a Bluesky Corporate PDS with almost 400,000 users.
@ikuturso @stefan @mastodonmigration @thisismissem
and?
if it enshittifies, people will simply migrate to other PDSes.
and those PDSes will start looking at different relays
the only thing i am concerned about is the appview thing, but i believe that deals with protocol content rather than any actual implementation (where the real nub of the control is)
-
@ikuturso @stefan @mastodonmigration @thisismissem
and?
if it enshittifies, people will simply migrate to other PDSes.
and those PDSes will start looking at different relays
the only thing i am concerned about is the appview thing, but i believe that deals with protocol content rather than any actual implementation (where the real nub of the control is)
@breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan @thisismissem
The problem is a matter of scale. There is no way for 99% of users to "simply" move anywhere.
-
It is inappropriate to create a "statements" directory in the repository, with this as the only item in it, making it seem as if it was an official SWICG statement.
Things like these are, at the very least, called a "draft" until they officially pass. You are doing your cause (to which I object anyway) no favor with this fishy activity.
@tuxwise @nik I had reason to believe it was fine, anyway, it's been taken down and replaced with this statement: https://github.com/swicg/general/blob/master/statements/2025-09-05-activitypub-and-atproto-discourse.md
