Statement on Discourse About Activitypub and at Protocol

What's the context here?

ATProto labeling services and AppViews are admirable additions, but we know full well in reality Bluesky centralizes control and is basically a scheme to co-opt open-source principles for private gain. As just one example, while the use of DIDs is an admirable feature to be emulated, the did:plc DID method operated by Bluesky Social is a step down from ActivityPub identity URLs.

The real question, is the W3C Social Web Working Group and the Fediverse more focused on censorship than on feature and software development? That's the reason Bluesky is able to do this in the first place. I think the W3C SW WG (and the Fediverse) is a dead letter because we also know full well they won't implement labeling services and app views among others (use curl for RDF data without authenticating I dare you) because it would hinder censorship, and the EU will compliance burden them into oblivion. Bluesky drilled right into the political aspects that the Fediverse cannot escape.

It will be a fun toy project though. But my dream of a web client, DID, potentially Solid based (or just plain JSON-LD over HTTP) server-app years ago was dashed by the centrality of censorship in the Fediverse. I really was amazed how central it was and apparently still is.

When you actually look at the people doing the coolest work on both sides you see everyone's getting along and nerding out about protocols and the future of technology.

The consensus there is pretty much that there's room for different notions and the way forward is collaboration. There's a small peanut gallery on ActivityPub driven by a small number of people mad ATProto is taking off. They sound exactly like now-forgotten OStatus grognards who were mad about ActivityPub. Their agitating gives a worse impression of inter-community relations if you don't look too close.

This statement and the signatories are more or less a who's who of who's doing the coolest work in this space.