This thread at least implies a basic definition of the Fediverse: Fediverse = ActivityPub.
But there’s more than “uses only ActivityPub and ActivityPub all the time” and “doesn’t understand ActivityPub”.
For example, there is (streams). It can speak ActivityPub. But it is not based on ActivityPub. It’s based on Nomad. It also speaks Zot6. And its ActivityPub support is optional, both server-wide and per channel, although it’s on by default in both places.
And then there’s (streams)’ big ancestor, Hubzilla. It, too, can speak ActivityPub. But it is not based on ActivityPub either. It is based on Zot6. It can speak a whole lot of protocols. ActivityPub support is established by an add-on named PubCrawl which, by default, is activated at server level, but deactivated on newly created channels.
Do both count as parts of the Fediverse because they both have ActivityPub support in some way?
Do both not count as parts of the Fediverse because neither of them is based on ActivityPub?
Do both not count as parts of the Fediverse because ActivityPub is optional at server level? Or because it’s optional at channel level?
Does (streams) count as part of the Fediverse because new channels support ActivityPub by default, but does Hubzilla not count as part of the Fediverse because new channels don’t support ActivityPub by default?
Does (streams) count as part of the Fediverse because ActivityPub support is built into the core, and does Hubzilla not count as part of the Fediverse because ActivityPub support comes from an add-on? (Side-effect, by the way: (streams)’ directory lists actors using ActivityPub, Zot6 and/or Nomad, but Hubzilla’s directory only lists channels using Zot6 in some way.)
Or would you draw the line around individual servers, i.e. Hubzilla hubs and (streams) servers do not count as part of the Fediverse if the admins have turned ActivityPub off server-wide?
Or would you go as far as drawing the line around individual channels, i.e. your (streams) channel officially leaves the Fediverse when you turn ActivityPub off, or your Hubzilla channel won’t be part of the Fediverse until you install PubCrawl?
I suggested the following definition for Fediverse Enhancement Proposals:
The Fediverse includes applications, services and communities using the ActivityPub protocol, its predecessors, and other historically related protocols that foster decentralized and diverse social media and culture.
https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/pulls/544/files
Under this definition, Hubzilla and Webfinger are parts of Fediverse.
Unfortunately, this PR was bike-shedded into oblivion.
@wakest on mastodon (idk his server) found some weird homespun social media site that used activity pub, and I made an account, but idk what it was called. It had a cool short URL.
https://social.wake.st/@liaizon
Found it! Take a gander at z.org
@sem @JupiterRowland the software is called #elektrine and its made by @maxfield
Removed by mod
I think there’s two concurrent, but different definitions of the word Fediverse. One means, software that can speak the ActivityPub protocol. And the other one means, social media service which is able to interconnect between different websites.
The first one is more useful if you want to use it and know whether it connects you to your friends on Mastodon and the other big ones. The latter is the more technical definition and includes older protocols as well, as well as newer ones and alternative approaches to form a network in a certain way. I guess it’s the more correct one. But it doesn’t tell you a lot as a user. Maybe technically it can exchange your user statuses but nobody uses it so you can’t really do anything with it in reality. Or there’s two approaches and you were talking about a different manifestation than somebody else, and you’re both federated but not part of any compatible ecosystem.
I think you can look at this in a gatekeeping way and a functional way. I’m personally anti-gatekeeping, so there’s that.
What I mean with functional is: why do you care about whether something is part of the fediverse? Obviously because you want to talk to it. You want to be able to reach it from places like Mastodon.
I see no benefit in worrying whether something is based on ActivityPub or merely supports it as one of several protocols. It remains reachable either way, unless your own platform restricts you like in Lemmy’s case.
That said, I do see your point regarding optionality. I think instances that choose not to use the fediverse plugin of their software aren’t part of the fediverse. But that’s no reason to call the software itself not a part of it. Just means users need to put extra effort into choosing an instance.
My understanding is that anything that is using activity pub to communicate is the fediverse.
Software, instance, or channel that isn’t actively communicating via activity pub, is not the fediverse.
Software, instance, or channel that is actively using activity pub to communicate (even if they are using other methods too), is the fediverse.
I’ve never read the activity pub documentation, so maybe there is more to it than that, but the above is my current understanding.
