馃 socialcoding.. @smallcircles@social.coop
Public

I recreated an old diagram in Excalidraw that I spread about a couple years ago, and made it a bit more informative. Explanation can be found in the

See also and for discussion: discuss.coding.social/t/diagra

Or join the Social experience design chatroom at: matrix.to/#/#socialcoding-foun

Also posted to at: socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/

@benBen Werdmuller

Diagram. Interoperability in practice. A chart with a horizontal axis that goes in 2 directions. On the left it moves towards chaotic grassroots growth, and on the right side towards open standards adoption. The Y-axis indicates level of complexity. The center indicates a low level of complexity. On the left side of the axis we first find the ActivityPub open standard, with a relatively low complexity level. However the prevailing method to evolving the ecosystem is driven by post facto interoperability, where tech debt and protocol decay is introduced and accepted, which must be refactored and evolve alongside the open standard. Since this doesn鈥檛 happen, the fediverse grassroots environment is shifting more to the left into non-lineary increasing accidental complexity. Deviating more and more from the ActivityPub standard and the promise that it holds to offer the Future of Social networking. On the right side, to contrast against fediverse, we find the Solid Project led by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, which is based on a whole range of W3C Linked Data related open standards and draft documents. There is no grassroots movement that drives progress, but a steering committee. Progress is restrained by open standards adoption and support. Higher levels of interoperability require more rigour and formal standardization, and this also leads to non-linear growth of, in this case, engineered complexity. Solution developers have to wait for many standards to mature, leading to inertia.
馃 socialcoding.. @smallcircles@social.coop
Public

social.coop/@smallcircles/1161

To get back to 'shared ownership' and @benBen Werdmuller article that triggered my blog post.

The is certainly not all cheerleaders, but the question is whether critical notes can be properly heard and addressed in any meaningful way. After all who are the ones who should hear them and act on them? It is "the herd", the crowd, the commons that happens to receive toots via their social graph, and to the extent these manage to penetrate bubbles and echo chambers. To make a strong argument, to reach people, the only strategy is social media influence marketing of sorts. You have to dare to rock the boat enough to be heard. And that's a very bad way to grow a healthy ecosystem I think.

It relates to the oft-heared criticism that on the app-centric fediverse, it is the app devs who are de-facto in charge and decide what goes and what goes not.

The social dynamics are tricky but fascinating. I hope to be able to spend more time at coding.social

0
1
1

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://social.coop/users/smallcircles/statuses/116119597745488218 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)

馃 socialcoding.. @smallcircles@social.coop
Public

@cwebberChristine Lemmer-Webber @eyeintheskyThe Eye @evanEvan Prodromou

> There are paths out of the situation, but I'm not confident in the discourse around them right now, and hesitant about how much I want to engage with it.

Yes. I posted something on the same subject today.

social.coop/@smallcircles/1161

0
0
0