That was one of Ben’s articles I was thinking of, but it doesn’t really define the term.

@tchambers @fediforum @ben @laurenshof

@jdp23 @fediforum @ben @laurenshof well, just from article:

Core Definition
"The open social web puts control back in your hands. Unlike big social media platforms, it's not run by a single company — it's made up of independent, connected communities where you decide how and with whom you interact."

(1 of N)

@jdp23 @fediforum @ben @laurenshof

More definition:

Key structural elements:

Data Ownership:
"on the open social web you own it all, and it can come with you if you ever choose to leave"

Platform Independence:
"you aren't locked into any platform. If the application you're using doesn't work out for whatever reason, you can just use another one"

Privacy-Focused:
"It respects your privacy, avoids intrusive ads, and gives you the freedom to truly own your online experience"

(3 of N)

@jdp23 @fediforum @ben @laurenshof

More:

Multi-protocol but interoperable: it described both ActivityPub & ATProto BOTH as part, and describes “open protocols (plural) here:

“You can build any kind of social tool on top of its open protocols, and nobody can stop you, or charge you for the privilege.”

Does that help?

I don't think any of those are definitions. Look at what happens when you try to use them to determine whether or not something's part of the "Open Social Web"

Threads doesn't respect my privacy. Does that mean it's not part of the "open social web"? What about non-consensual search engines which ignore Mastodon's opt-in search settings? What about Bluesky, which is all-public -- including blocks?

mastodon.social and mastodon.online aren't independent (they're both owned by Mastodon gGmbH), does that mean they're not part of the "open social web"?

indieweb.social blocks a lot of instances, which is good, but it means that people there don't have complete control over who they interact with ... does that mean indieweb.social isn't part of the "open social web"?

XMPP's an open protocol, and anybody can write anything on top of it, so is everything XMPP-based part of the open social web? What about OAuth? HTTP?

A farmers' market isn't run by a single company, is it part of the "open social web"?

etc etc etc.

@tchambers @fediforum @ben @laurenshof

@jdp23 @fediforum @ben @laurenshof

I think the above basic definition isn't as loose as you do. Will say why later after work.

@jdp23 @tchambers @fediforum @ben @laurenshof
What are you hoping to get out of this definition?

Three things: enough of an understanding of the way various people use the term to be able to talk admit the implications, an idea of whether or not there’s any agreement on what it means, an idea of the boundaries (if any).

@jenniferplusplus @tchambers @fediforum @ben @laurenshof

@jdp23 @jenniferplusplus @fediforum @ben @laurenshof I’d argue good consensus, and crisp enough functional boundaries on all and will say more tonight.

@jdp23 - boiled Ben's points down:

-Decentralized Architecture: No single company ownership/control platform
-Community Structure: Independent, connected communities
- User Agency: Users decide socnet interactions
- Data Ownership: Users own content & can take it with them
- Privacy: Respects privacy as key design element
- Multiple Open Protocols: Built for unrestricted open development

& stretch goal for all:
- Platform Independence: Switch services without losing social graph

@jdp23 OK here is my take on your objection that this is such an open definition that one could drive a truck thru it and it doesn't define much...

In short, when you see my set of bullets above, I'd argue that it is a functional and meaningful working definition that defines something concrete. I'll answer your examples you asked about to show what I mean. (1 of N)

@jdp23 - all my view only:

- Threads: YMMV on how privacy-protecting a service is will vary, but the protocols themselves the platforms use must support privacy moderation by other members of the Open Social Web. Threads that are federating out; do that. So they are in.

-- A non-consensual search engine: Same: if it sent its findings to the Open Social Web, would need to do so in protocols that DID enable privacy via users' and/or admins' ability to moderate. If so, they are in. (2 of n)

@jdp23 -

For two: Mastodon.oneline and mastodon.social aren't the whole Actiivtypub Fediverse, but if even they were, if they speak out to the larger Open Social Web in a protocol no one company owns and no one company controls, all good.

(Think of a private single user Masto server, that is owned and controlled by one person, the owner but as the protocol it speaks to the open social web isn’t, all good)

(3 of N)

@jdp23 -

For three: For indieweb.social: all users on that platform can move to others that have moderation policies they prefer or start their own. So complete control. So that is in.

For four: XMPP if it bridged to open social web, and enabled these other requirements in how it spoke to the rest of the open social web, all good. HTTP is in now in both ATProto and ActivityPub. And Nostr.
OAuth doesn't really apply, as it itself doesn't "speak" to other open social web actors.

(4 of n)

@jdp23 -

Four (cont'd): So Oath doesn't "speak" or publish out but other other protocols do -- like email, RSS, Podcast feeds etc all can. And have been experimented with being bridged to Open Social Web. If those bridges do so in a way respecting all the requirements of the Open Social web above, all good.

Five: Farmers markets only are part of the Open Social web if they have a federated inbox and outbox. :-)

(5 of 5)

Thanks @tchambers ...

but the protocols themselves the platforms use must support privacy moderation by other members of the Open Social Web.

That's very different than your earlier definition of "respects your privacy".

Agreed, though, that with this revised definition, ti's clear that privacy-violating apps like Threads and non-consensual ActivityPub search engines which are built on top of protocols that allow others to respect privacy if they want to, are part of the Open Social Web.

(On the other hand, AT Proto is all-public and doesn't support privacy moderation, so this revised definition seems to rule out Bluesky.)

Mastodon.oneline and mastodon.social aren't the whole Actiivtypub Fediverse

True but your definition says that the Open SOcial Web is made up of independent communities, and they aren't independent from each other. I guess you could change the definition to be just "connected communities " whether or not they're independent.

But do you really want to define it in terms of communities? Communities by definition involve multiple people, so this rules out single-user instances. And what about an instance that only hosts bots, not people?

For indieweb.social: all users on that platform can move to others that have moderation policies they prefer or start their own.

Again I think you've changed the definition here, from "users decide socnet interactions" to "users can create accounts on some other site."

XMPP if it bridges to open social web

No, I'm talking about just XMPP on its own. XMPP is an open protocol that supports privacy. XMPP servers are independent and connected. People who don't like one XMPP server can create another. So even if they don't bridge, it seems to me that by your definition XMPP servers are part of the Open Social Web. And the same goes for email, RSS, etc.

Which is fine if that's your intent, it's a coherent definition, I'm just not sure that's how most people use the term. Flipboard's Surf has one of the broader defintiions I've seen

Surf gives users the power to search the entire open social web and quickly add favorite sources from Bluesky, Threads or Mastodon, community hashtags, RSS feeds, podcasts and YouTube channels to their own custom feed.

and it does include RSS whether or not it's bridged, but it doesn't include XMPP or email

@jdp23 Bluesky bridges to the open social web via BridgyFed in very privacy respectful ways, so that is fine … plus I argue their privacy respecting in that users have 100% agency if they want to be on an all public network or not. And if anyone else PII about them, bluessky has systems in place to moderate.

@jdp23 for independent communities - think of that more as threads is independent from Flipboard, which is independent from wrirefreely, which is independent from Mastodon which is independent from Bluesky but are all part of one open social web. Just like the old true web. The verge.com is independentfrom facebook.com which is independent from indiewebbsocial.com. But are all part of one web.

@jdp23 you’re mixing up categories with Indie web social example. This was you objecting that into my social should be a part of the open social web because we block some people. And that therefore takes away agency from end users, but I just showed you how that’s not so.

@jdp23 for your statement on XMPP that even if they didn’t bridge to the open social web, maybe they’re part of the open social web on their own: no it’s just like the actual web. There’s only one open social web just like there’s only one web - if you don’t interact with the bigger web you’re not part of it. You’re an Internet.

Same with the open social web - there’s only one and to be part of it. You have to be a part of it and natively or via a bridge interact with it.

@jdp23 I think your surf example of surf misses the point of that app in this regard - no the very cool thing about surf is that it integrates non-bridged content those into the open social web. If if you see an article published in RSS that is not bridged you can publish it and when you do it’s published as an activity pub or Bluesky post — bringing that content into the open social web. In this example: It pulls open web content into the open social web.

Immagona argue (again) that the way BridgyFed works, it enables convenient stalking, prevents cross-network blocking and fails to communicate interaction - so while it's apparent the intent was to respect privacy, in practice it is the opposite.
@tchambers @jdp23

@osma @jdp23 how does BridgeFed prohibit cross network blocking? I’m pretty sure blocks just work like blocks.

And as public posts on mastodon are already public they’re already open for the entire web to stalk, no ?

It’s not that it prohibits it, but there’s no way for a bridged aunt to subscribe to Bluesky blocklists or labellers
@tchambers @osma

Either side may not even be aware that on the other side, someone is engaging in an activity that warrants blocking, because an unbridged account can engage in whatever - including replies, boosts etc without becoming visible to the OP.
@tchambers @jdp23

@osma @jdp23 Using the example from the POV of an AP user. If someone in ATprot land is doing bad shit that warrants blocking, but is unbridged and so that AP user never sees it, what is the problem? And once that harmful ATProot user DOES bridge, the AP user has all the agency in the world to moderate it.

Harassment is a problem even if the person being targeted doesn't directly see it. This is why we have blocking in addition to muting!

@tchambers @osma

@jdp23 @tchambers @osma Agreed wrt just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not happening. This is a missing piece in Bridgy Fed (hidden interaction) that we've been discussing - will have more to share soon.

@quillmatiq @jdp23 @osma Cool 👍

@jdp23 @osma OK but there still plenty of agency on the Acitvtypub side of the fence to use good Fedi moderation.
That's all that counts.

"all that counts"? Not only is that factually incorrect, but wow.
@tchambers @jdp23