Discussion
yeah exactly this. the ideal case would have a fairly singular shared understanding of "this is where you can talk about activitypub", but operated in a decentralised and federated manner.
Good discussion! I see it more as multiple understandings of "these are places where people talk about ActivityPub, and here are the qualities of the different places". For example I don't think there's shared understanding of SWICG (and W3C in general) as a place where fascist organizations are first-class participants and there are systemic barriers to women and feminist organizations. I don't think there's shared understanding among people who participate on SocialHub that it's an anti-Black space.
It is important to note that the substrate is only conceptually centralized in how things ultimately come together.
What value does this conceptual centralization add ?
@laurenshof@indieweb.social @smallcircles @fediversereport@laurenshof@connectedplaces.online
I share your concerns about the variety of issues with inclusion in the mentioned spaces. For me, framing the need for a centralised substrate for a decentralised network actually further accentuates how important those problems are.
For example: If there are 10 different forums to discuss FEPs, and a few of those forums are racist, than thats bad
If there is 1 forum for everyone to discuss FEPS, and that forum is racist, than thats extra bad
Not Found.
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
