is a user on You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.

well I did a bit of Censure Communautariste towards the "fork mastodon to remove CWs and ActivityPub" and "Gargamel is a dictator who wants to kill OStatus" crowd.

@mmn @deadsuperhero ActivityPub allows for PGP encryption, so it would be possible to do real privacy although where and in what form private keys are stored would be the bigger question. It could be done something like ProtonMail where the user supplies a password which generates the private key on the client side.

I'm still inclined to think though that the best tools for hombre-to-hombre private communications are the ones we already have, with ratchets and so on.

@bob I think there are quite a few benefits that GNU Social could get by supporting AP. I hope there isn't too much "burn" by seeing it as a "Mastodon vs GNU Social" battle. I tried pretty hard to avoid that; @mmn and @deadsuperhero both at least can verify that I did try to get GNU Social and everyone else involved. I know that's not an obligation for GNU Social to adopt AP, not saying it is, just saying healing the "fractured federation" has always been a large reason for me working on AP.

@cwebber The only reason !GNUsocial doesn't have #ActivityPub yet is because I have a fulltime job and noone else has been up for the task .]

Though I'm pretty sure it'd still just be the 100% public parts of AP that would be used/promoted, as I'm pretty much convinced there's no such thing as privacy in the social sphere anyway and anyone using "private" communication in an environment like !GNUsocial or #Mastodon is fooled either by the platform, the administrator or other users. (anything accessible via a web browser isn't made for privacy)

@mmn @cwebber question, do you hold the same opinion about email? Do you refuse to use it? It seems almost obligatory for participation in the web these days.

Does gnu social support password reset over email? Why?

@nightpool @cwebber Whether e-mail is used or not is more a question of legacy than that it would respect anyone's privacy.

My argumentation is primarily that an environment where the only difference between publishing your sensitive posts/pictures privately or publicly etc. is the value of some checkbox - then it's not appropriate for private communication. Even less so when that checkbox in practice is on a remote server governed by a remote admin.

E-mail clients, for comparison, don't have a "share this post" button that potentially goes worldwide. Public mailing lists are explicitly opt-in and there's no real notion of a "public e-mail inbox".

Federated social webs however don't work as they're dreamt about without eventually sharing information, metadata and posts to larger and larger - less controllable - groups of people.

Centralised systems can control this more - but once you go federated then the end station you will reach is full-on public socialising.
@nightpool @cwebber Essentially, I would like to have the discussion of "what happens when I click repeat and the post is private but I want to share it with the world?" to be somewhat settled among the _users_ (not us technicians) who will get baffled at the simple post privacy switcharoo.
@nightpool @cwebber Oh, and for modern "e-mail but with privacy" I would say !xmpp's solved all of the issues at hand.

@mmn @nightpool I *love* XMPP! XMPP is pretty great! I still haven't tried OMEMO yet but I hear good things about it.

However it isn't very weblike, and we haven't really seen attempts to build social networks on top of XMPP pan out in practice yet. Not sure why though, and maybe lack of web-likeness (or the disconnect between "should every user be an xmpp user or should the server be one big xmpp user" that seems to happen)

Hi @cwebber @mmn @nightpool jumping into the thread.

Why #XMPP would not be weblike? I'm working with XMPP (very implicated), and we have several Web clients. I'm working on Salut à Toi (#SàT), but there is also #Movim (and use to be #Jappix now discontinued). And we do social for years.

@Goffi @cwebber @mmn uh this was a little before my time so I might be off base here but my understanding is that "web like" in this context means "a protocol based around web standards, such as HTTP" and that it's not supposed to be a value judgement, just a way of scoping the focus of the Social Web Working Group.

@Goffi @mmn And yeah, @nightpool has the scoping right. You *can* use XMPP with federated web networks, but what the SocialWG and SocialCG are focusing on are how to use the web as the *fundamental structure* of a federated social network.

@matrix @cwebber @mmn @nightpool matrix which has still a very dishonest and FUD spreading FAQ about XMPP, even after promising to change it for a while ( and It's a pity, it's the only project with this behavior.

@Goffi @matrix as per that diaspora thread, tweaking the faq (again) is on my todo and PRs are welcome, although it's not made it to the top of the list yet, especially as you are the only person I know who has complained. I somehow doubt we are the only project with outdated or inaccurate FAQ entries about alternative techs. And my only reason for butting into this thread was just to remind that we exist; not to instigate drama :| @matrix

@Goffi fwiw we just updated (as per; hopefully feels less dishonest to you now. If not, please yell or comment on the commit or something.

· Web · 0 · 0

Hi @matrix . I still think that most of the statements are wrongs (for instance with the first one, you can speak directly from a browser using BOSH or Websocket), but at least the formulation is less offensive now, thank you for the effort!

I'm really much in a cooperation spirit with FOSS projects, but it's discouraging when you have, in addition to work on your free time, to fight against wrong statements or approximations which are spreading. So I'm happy if this is changing :).