Can you imagine Mastodon raising 100 MILLION dollars from a crypto VC fund and failing to disclose it... for a full year?

[mariusor@metalhead.club]

@stefan frankly I don't think that migrating from URLs to DIDs as identifiers would still qualify as the same protocol in the case of ActivityPub.

So, if ActivityPub is the main component of the Fediverse - which it is for me - I don't think we'll be able to reproduce _all_ the functionality ATProto has.

@_elena @benroyce @mat

[stefan@stefanbohacek.online]

@mariusor

Right, I didn't say all of it, so I don't disagree. But we can definitely fix all the major issues people have with the fediverse in some way.

@_elena @benroyce @mat

[wjmaggos@liberal.city]

@tedmielczarek @_elena

Is there any requirement to make it public within 1 year? otherwise I wonder why they're announcing it at all.

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@mariusor @stefan @_elena @mat

mastodon was playing around with DIDs at some point

you can find references to it in the documentation (deprecated now for a long time)

example:

https://docs.joinmastodon.org/entities/IdentityProof/

not sure why they abandoned it

maybe because DID just isn't there yet

[benjamineskola@hachyderm.io]

@_elena Yeah, I don't believe this for one minute.

Considering what a big deal it is for most companies to successfully raise VC money, they want us to believe that it wasn't important enough to make time to announce it? Any other company would drop everything to shout it from the rooftops.

And a funding round is a significant amount of work already, so are we supposed to believe that after all that work they had to put into it, they didn't schedule time to even do the tiniest announcement about it?

And like, I would have guessed that the VC firm itself also has PR people whose job it would be to help out with that, and they were still too busy? No.

[javascript@app.wafrn.net]

yeah actually the concept of DID as decentralized identifiers can have its equivalent in the Portable Objects Proposal described here: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/ef61/fep-ef61.md

This is just more complex to do in an ecosystem like the fediverse where implementations are (and have been for a long time) less standarized

[otfrom@functional.cafe]

@ainmosni @_elena @patpro @Codeberg we do need something like 50 to 500 codebergs

[mariusor@metalhead.club]

@benroyce I wasn't speaking of Mastodon because they barely do any effort into being a spec compliant ActivityPub service...

@stefan @_elena @mat

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@mariusor @stefan @_elena @mat

not in an effort to start a fight but just divulging my honest views on the topic:

so fucking what

just build shit

the spec can follow behind later

waiting for perfect spec structuring before doing anything is an exercise in inertia

[amoshias@esq.social]

@_elena oh, Mike. oh, oh, oh, Mike.

I like the guy and appreciate what he does but just...

this isn't a thing.

does he think all the other companies are just sitting around eating bonbons, and this one specific company is busy?

[mariusor@metalhead.club]

@javascript I thought I was pretty clear in my initial statement: if DIDs are used as primary identifiers for objects, the resulting specification is no longer ActivityPub.

Unless the SocialCG comes up with ActivityPub 2.0 that has DID as identifiers, I wouldn't call the implementations that use that FEP as ActivityPub compliant.

@_elena @benroyce @stefan @mat

[jaypeach53@mastodon.social]

@mat @_elena @benroyce B$ky is BullShit.

[mariusor@metalhead.club]

@benroyce maybe you want to look through my post history before giving me advice to build shit. I'm not speaking from a point of ignorance.

The reason why some of us are trying to stick to the specification is to maximize compatibility between implementations. Each project adding their little flavour of functionality before even bothering to have a solid common foundation is detrimental to the health of the ecosystem as a whole.

@stefan @_elena @mat

[bazkie@beige.party]

@markmetz @_elena what's narrative capture?

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@mariusor @stefan @_elena @mat

i don't give a shit about your post history. i have no doubt you're quite knowledgeable and i don't think you're ignorant at all

but i think "stick to the spec" is purposeful impotence

just build shit and fuck the spec. the spec can follow along later, and if a feature is useful and popular, other projects can copy it

nevermind that demanding spec authority in a decentralized system is a fool's errand

just do whatever the fuck you want, fuck specs

[wjmaggos@liberal.city]

@_elena @benroyce @mat

imo we should think of social media (the social news feed ala bluesky and mastodon etc) as totally public like blogs you can boost. that's different than messaging and groups that need privacy, what I call social networking.

I think bluesky's goal is to be the Google/Gmail of all of social media. "it's open so you could use other services but we make it easy and provide a better experience." the way the app view works makes that possible unlike how AP works. enshittify.

[abucci@buc.ci]

@tedmielczarek@mastodon.social @_elena@mastodon.social I have had the same experience. I co-founded a startup in 2016 that managed to secure a funding round, and the VCs themselves were giddy about announcing it as widely as possible. I've consulted for startups both before and after that, and as far as I'm aware every one of them that secured funding rapidly announced it. This explanation from Bluesky does not pass a basic smell test.

[hipsterelectron@circumstances.run]

@tedmielczarek @_elena series B is one of the stages that represents a categorical step up in financing and control structures. series G like sure at that point people tend to stop counting but B is still a champagne event

[nickapos@mastodon.oncrete.uk]

@benroyce @_elena Yeah i completely agree