<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[This article is a must read.]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p class="quote-inline">RE: <a href="https://mas.to/@Aubreader/116330793703168577" rel="nofollow noopener"><span>https://</span><span>mas.to/@Aubreader/116330793703</span><span>168577</span></a></p><p>This article is a must read.</p><p>An excerpt: “Why would anyone fund an Atmosphere project if <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Bluesky" rel="tag">#<span>Bluesky</span></a>, with $100 million in the bank, might ship a competing feature at any moment? Why would a founder bet their career on this ecosystem? The presentation didn't just hurt Graze. It made the entire ecosystem look unfundable.”</p><p>Why do I keep bringing up this topic? </p><p>Because <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/ATproto" rel="tag">#<span>ATproto</span></a> is often put in the same category as <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/ActivityPub" rel="tag">#<span>ActivityPub</span></a> (“open protocols yay”) but I strongly disagree with that stance</p>]]></description><link>https://forum.fedi.dk/topic/70bae820-96fc-4526-a7a3-c1e5afae0463/this-article-is-a-must-read.</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 10:23:29 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.fedi.dk/topic/70bae820-96fc-4526-a7a3-c1e5afae0463.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 07:57:13 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to This article is a must read. on Thu, 02 Apr 2026 12:23:42 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p><span><a href="/user/_elena%40mastodon.social">@<span>_elena</span></a></span> it's a mess that keeps growing, and we will be left to compost it, too much <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/techshit" rel="tag">#<span>techshit</span></a>, and we all start to stink - why would anyone use the <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/openweb" rel="tag">#<span>openweb</span></a> with that bad smell. The last time this happened was the <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/encryptionists" rel="tag">#<span>encryptionists</span></a> with the <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/blockchain" rel="tag">#<span>blockchain</span></a> mess, there is a big overlap with <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/bluesky" rel="tag">#<span>bluesky</span></a></p>]]></description><link>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.social/users/hamishcampbell/statuses/116335091570741178</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.social/users/hamishcampbell/statuses/116335091570741178</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[hamishcampbell@mastodon.social]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 12:23:42 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to This article is a must read. on Thu, 02 Apr 2026 12:04:11 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p><span><a href="/user/_elena%40mastodon.social">@<span>_elena</span></a></span> - completely agree with this.  If Bluesky have taken $100m then someone is expecting north of $1b back, so the question is whether there's a way to achieve that which is aligned with the community, and even if there is, whether management has the discipline (and strategic skill) to avoid being distracted by easier wins or bigger prizes. We've had more than 20 years of people trying and failing to do that, and I've not seen anyone credibly arguing that something fundamental has changed.</p><p>We mustn't be complacent about ActivityPub though - as I see it there are very few protocols which are genuinely open, to the extent that they couldn't be easily captured by a sufficiently well funded motivated  party. Those which are (HTTP, email, JSON, etc.) have been widely used for a long time, so there's a lot more work to do.</p>]]></description><link>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://universeodon.com/users/philcowans/statuses/116335014801513840</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://universeodon.com/users/philcowans/statuses/116335014801513840</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[philcowans@universeodon.com]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 12:04:11 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to This article is a must read. on Thu, 02 Apr 2026 11:50:46 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p><span><a href="/user/_elena%40mastodon.social">@<span>_elena</span></a></span> thank you for sharing the article.</p><p>The same considerations should be honestly made for the <a href="https://social.coop/tags/ActivityPub" rel="tag">#<span>ActivityPub</span></a> fediverse as well. So we may address them in time. Not all is well. I am writing a blog post on open standards divergence and increasing unattractiveness of an ecosystem that hems itself into a straitjacket of narrow application areas, by the protocol decay we allow to fester. Combined with inadequate work methods to reconcile the tech debt that this incurs. We must go "back to standards" or have an ecosystem based on enabling technologies that are increasingly unattractive to adopt.</p>]]></description><link>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://social.coop/users/smallcircles/statuses/116334962063721246</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://social.coop/users/smallcircles/statuses/116334962063721246</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[smallcircles@social.coop]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 11:50:46 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to This article is a must read. on Thu, 02 Apr 2026 08:22:39 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p><span><a href="/user/_elena%40mastodon.social">@<span>_elena</span></a></span> reading that article I also stopped at that sentence. I totally love the fact that nobody think activitypub is a good place to do VC funding of startups ... It proves it's sane enough <img src="https://forum.fedi.dk/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/2764.png?v=7979fdcf9c7" class="not-responsive emoji emoji-android emoji--heart" style="height:23px;width:auto;vertical-align:middle" title="&lt;3" alt="❤" /></p>]]></description><link>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://piaille.fr/users/benjamin/statuses/116334143706541627</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://piaille.fr/users/benjamin/statuses/116334143706541627</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[benjamin@piaille.fr]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 08:22:39 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to This article is a must read. on Thu, 02 Apr 2026 08:04:25 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p><span><a href="/user/_elena%40mastodon.social">@<span>_elena</span></a></span> they think algorithmically sorting people *in the context of discursive discussion* can be good. They are wrong</p>]]></description><link>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.social/users/urlyman/statuses/116334071993411689</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.social/users/urlyman/statuses/116334071993411689</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[urlyman@mastodon.social]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 08:04:25 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>