Post · bonfire.cafe

I consider this to be part of the "misconceptions" that exist on the ActivityPub fediverse, to once more quote the term as Rich Hickey uses in "Hammock driven development". See:

https://coding.social/blog/grassroots-evolution/#remove-misconceptions

The way I look at ActivityStreams is as a toolbox of social primitives, building blocks for federated solutions. Not as core capabilities of the ActivityPub protocol. Because they are simply not specified as universal and ubiquitous protocol capabilities.

If one particular object supports CRUD is solution-specific in my book. Ideally the ActivityStreams primitives all have well-defined singular purpose, but unfortunately that is not the case. More the opposite where everyone is encouraged to hammer their business domain into an ActivityStreams straitjacket.

Social coding commons

Grassroots fediverse evolution

Social dynamics in the grassroots fediverse ecosystem and laisséz-faire practices led to divergence from power and promise of the ActivityPub protocol. Grassroots standards and the ActivityPub API initiative can get us back on track.

d@nny disc@ mc²

@hipsterelectron@circumstances.run · 10 hours ago

@ireneista @smallcircles i'm replying not to educate irenes (who taught me much of the above in the first place) but to identify to onlookers that your invocation of the moral right here is more subtle and powerful than it may appear at first because it speaks to that very tension inherent in a system of rights we would like to create together. it's a very radical thing to propose a system of government, even more so one with guarantees of protection as described so concisely here

d@nny disc@ mc²

@hipsterelectron@circumstances.run · 10 hours ago

d@nny disc@ mc²

@hipsterelectron@circumstances.run · 10 hours ago

@ireneista @smallcircles one curious analogy to OP is the variance across US states around the legality of recording a phone call. making it illegal to record a phone call you participated in typically renders the recording inadmissible as evidence (so you can't use a recording in court). this makes certain forms of whistleblowing illegal and makes it much more difficult to litigate an employer for sexual harassment. therefore, this "two-party" law (as observed in the state of california) structurally disadvantages plaintiffs.

d@nny disc@ mc²

@hipsterelectron@circumstances.run · 9 hours ago

@ireneista @smallcircles however, in advocacy (and even in the name "two-party"), the matter of recording is not cast in terms of litigation between adversarial parties, but as if it were a more intimate discussion between two good-faith individuals who are not currently filing a lawsuit against each other. one might even go so far as to think the two-party consent law would protect you against self-incrimination by law enforcement, assuming that nobody can record you without your consent under any circumstances. this is unfortunately not how (nor why) such laws are written, because US state governments will only protect the rights of their own citizens at best, and only under duress.

1+ more replies

🫧 socialcoding..

@smallcircles@social.coop · 10 hours ago

@hipsterelectron @ireneista

Great follow-up. Thank you.