>The world hasn't seen a network quite like Fediverse.
But it has seen very similar ones, eg. SMTP and XMPP.
You can call it Web 3.0 if youbwant but we're merely getting back to where we were in the 90s.
Since most of the web has been regressing towards mainframe age during the last decade, you could call this a success. But we have ways to go.
@wolf480pl xmpp is homogenous. No node is different in function and presentation from another node. Fediverse is WILDLY heterogenous. Those are on completely different levels.
Heterogenous meaning everybody is free and even encouraged to do shit their own way, as long as they stay compatible. So we have microblogging, full-service social networks (Friendica), videohostigs and streaming services, photohostings, social playlist sharing services (Funkwhale), soon there will be social reading engine, there's already a game of fucking chess (castling.club), you name it.
@drq XMPP isn't all that homogenous - the core protocol may be the same for everyone, but different servers implement different sets of extensions, and then there are components like MUC, gateways to other protocols, HTTP upload, videobridges, etc., each of which does something different, and different implementations of each of those vary noticeably too.
There is also some variety across clients. Not as much as in case of Fedi - AFAIK Movim is the only one which tried doing a non-IM UI.
@wolf480pl For XMPP, trying to get heterogenous is more of a hinderance, because it's not explicit and just introduces mess without any real benefits. XMPP is better when everyoune is on the same page as to what extensions we support and what we don't, which client we use, which supports the extensions we use, etc.
Yeah, it certainly feels like this.
But why is that so?
What is it that we don't like about XMPP heterogenity?
Well, it's not quite compatible.
Unless you specifically choose a client and server that work well together, nothing but a basic text chat will work reliably. Any fancy stuff tends to be incompatible.
But then, is fediverse any better? What kinda user experience do you get when viewing a peertube video in Mastodon, other reading and replying with basic text?
@drq Heck, there are incompatibilities even across different implementations of microblogging. Pleroma has a bunch of features that look like garbage when viewed with Mastodon. Mastodon's reply-on-home-TL-visibility semantics aren't expressed well in the APub objects, so you'd have to copy its heuristics to display it in the same way on any other server, even when using the same client.
@wolf480pl But still, _somehow_ it all works way better than if we tried to implement the same stuff via XMPP
Fediverse is no doubt a significant improvement in terms of UX, and is a big change in the social aspect - it has wider adoption, unique subcultures, people actually use it instead of idling, etc.
What I'm saying is, it's not a new invention technology-wise. It just a slightly better execution of existing inventions that happened to become popular.
@wolf480pl Isn't every new invention a slightly better executed and transformed sum of existing inventions?
Everything is a remix.
@drq imagine a world where microwave ovens are only used industrially. If I start making smaller microwaves made of cheaper parts and selling them to individual customers for household use, is that an invention?
@drq hmm yeah, so in a similar way, I think fediverse is not a breakthrough. What it does was known to be possible for two decades, but nobody before figured out how to make it accessible to the masses.
> What it does was known to be possible for two decades
Not before the invention of Ostatus. Which is yeah, 13 years old. The Fediverse is older than you probably know.
> but nobody before figured out how to make it accessible to the masses.
@drq if you stopped and think after seeing XMPP and twitter, I think it'd be clear that making a federated twitter would be possible.
That you could use the federated twitter protocol for a federated reddit and a federated youtube... well, not so obvious, but it doesn't take a genius to spot that at their core, they're all similar.
@wolf480pl "Federated twitter", yes, probably easily. "Federated everything that federates with federated everything" - well... Probably you could, but XMPP didn't do it, OStatus did, and that's the distinction.
The question is not "who could". The question is "who did".
@deavmi if IoT uses of XMPP make it heterogenous federation, you could argue TCP/IP is a heterogenous federation as well. Pretty sure OP wouldn't be convinced by that.
As for theoretical possibility of implementing all socnets over XMPP - yeah, it's technically possible, but I'm not convinced it'd interoperate with IM clients that don't have explicit code added to support non-IM usecases.
@deavmi you can follow a PeerTube channel with your Mastodon account and you will get some kind of messages. And your replies will show up as comments.
It's not a stellar level of interoperability but it's something.
Do you think you could make something like this on XMPP, without throwing out all existing implementations and writing a rewriting the whole ecosystem from scratch?
@deavmi sorry it's just that OP said that he cares about "heterogenous federation" and not just any kind of federation, and yet you seemed to miss that aspect.
I'm kinda tired of this thread and really didn't want to repeat what he said.
@deavmi you're missing the point.
I'm not saying you can run IoT over TCP. I'm saying just because you can run IoT over XMPP doesn't mean XMPP is that "heterogenous federation" OP was talking about.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!