@dansup@evan There’s actually existed such a one: Flattr integrated with the Fediverse before the term Fediverse existed (implemented OStatus) and eg. experimented with an identity graph crawler to make easier claiming of content: https://voxpelli.com/2012/10/relspider-what-why/
@tchambers RSS readers, podcast players, read it later services etc all need some kind of standardized OpenID Connect based flow to authorize access to content and/or some DRM style encryption to ensure the content can only be consumed by authorized clients
For ActivityPub I guess they make use of the follow request feature for access control? But for good UX they would probably want clients to be able to show that it’s paid for content in some way?
@tchambers How do they make that work? If I pay and get a unique RSS url, then I can share that RSS url with you?
There needs to be a way to authenticate oneself from within the podcast client so that one can add it as one of X allowed clients for one’s subscription
(This is why we never launched paid podcasts when I worked at a newspaper ≈5 years ago)
@tchambers Why? Not sure paywalls solve much? (And that comes from someone who long promoted the rel-payment microformat and built web extensions etc supporting it)
Conway's law applied to open source projects is an interesting exercise when they become professionalized:
They go from collaborative dog fooding that solves the needs of the individual contributors – the producers and consumers are one – “prosumers”
Instead they become projects that’s maintained for someone else – the prosumer and the dog fooding is replaced with customers, users and producers (some consumers donate, “customers”, others simply use it, “users”)
@pfefferle@evan@manton Not sure if those Open Source projects that are referred to are projects like Mastodon and WordPress or projects done by smaller independent developers that don’t have dedicated people working in standards groups etc
@evan@manton Why picking a name that indicates that it’s something more than that then?
And what went wrong with the plurality of tech in the Social WG? Maybe there’s an FAQ that puts this new foundation in its historical context and explains why it needed to be different?
@evan@manton Also: Any non-companies involved or is this an organization to push commercial adoption or are also independent developers like @manton (and eg. me) relevant to it? I mostly see big company logos?
@manton I’m a bit insulted that it seems to be exclusively ActivityPub tech, I like the Social WG that preceded it and which also standardized MicroPub, Webmention, WebSub
ActivityPub is important and interoperability is important – but this foundation seems to consider it as the one tech to rule all the social?
@tchambers@pfefferle@snarfed.org@evan I know that eg Ivory shows quoted posts, but it’s purely presentational, in the post itself it’s embedded just like any hyperlink, not as part of the activity and as such eg no mention notifications
@pfefferle@talksina@lordmatt As a standard #Webmention is merely a notification mechanism that A has mentioned B – they can be blog posts, social interactions or whatever else
The #IndieWeb stack of tech is much more granular than the #ActivityPub one – so the definition of A and B is left as an exercise to the user of it
But maybe you're talking about a WordPress plugin specifically?
@pfefferle It’s a bit disappointing that instead of being a link to a acct: URL which one can look up with WebFinger to discover ActivityPub endpoint etc with it’s something that looks almost proprietary in its nature
Web developer, +10 years of web dev, creator, non-influencer, open source contributor, #nodejs user, #IndieWeb participant, #TypesInJs advocate. Lives in southernmost Sweden 🇸🇪