@bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber the main difference is that #IndieWeb (as I understand it) is designed around the idea of everyone having a self-hosted homepage, which implements a bunch of simple-as-possible protocols, allowing those homepages to form a social network. Obviously quite different from the assumptions behind AP (a federation of servers, each with one or more users, each with a web or native client) or #SSB (a #P2P network of native clients that may have intermittent net access)
@strypey @bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber Not an expert but I don't think it's *necessarily* (although very common) about being self-hosted, it's about owning your identity and your data. e.g. https://micro.blog provides hosted services that adhere to indieweb protocols (and principles).
In some ways its closer to Hubzilla than Mastodon, IMO.
The reason I mention that (and hope I'm correct in saying so) is that I think it's vital that indieweb does not expect everyone will self-host.
@cwebber @neil @bhaugen @KevinMarks yeah, with all due respect to the IndieWeb folks, it kind of reminds me of those people who are super passionate about growing their own organic veges, or knitting cardigans, or restoring old cars, and don't seem to grasp that this is much harder and less appealing for other people than it is for them. Also that for some people, it's as achievable as performing your own brain surgery.
@neil @cwebber @bhaugen @KevinMarks this is some really good strategic thinking. But is still assumes that the end of goal is 'everyone is a commune of 1'. To me, projects like #RiseUp, #FramaSoft,#Disroot, and many others demonstrate that its possible to 'own your own data' collectively, as well as individually.
The reason we are going with personal ActivityPubs (as well as organizational ActivityPubs) is that an individual (me, for example) can participate and federate with many organizations and other individuals.
Any or all of those could be hosted by cooperatives.
But the structure matches what we see happening around us.
@bhaugen @neil @cwebber @KevinMarks sure, I am in no way opposed to individual instances. But I'm thinking about my Mum as a potential user, or even my brothers and sisters. I just can't imagine a time that they're ever going to be willing to admin their own instance. Some of them don't even admin their own devices, after years of owning computers of various kinds ;)
@bhaugen Easy hosting - yes please! Definitely part of the vision? Starting now, not in the future! For example, I'm stunned there seems to be no hosting service for Mediawik that doesn't require me to adopt the 'server admin' role - which I absolutely don't have time or priorities or brain cells for. I could really use a wiki. But no way am I going to hack CSS or install modules - no matter how well written the help files are. Life's too short.
@strypey @neil @cwebber @KevinMarks
> Easy hosting - yes please! Definitely part of the vision?
> Starting now, not in the future!
No. Somebody (probly more than one person) needs to do some work and probly spend some money. But we'll definitely be talking to the various hosting cooperatives.
@mayel Slight tangent . . I'm experimenting (tentatively) with #beaker browser & pages written in #markdown in a repo shared over #dat as a basis for a website hosted on my own laptop boosted via #hashbase platform host. Far fewer features than Mediawiki - unless somone arranges a beaker hackathon? But maybe a regime like this is within the limited scope of a 'non-admin' user? The P2P capability might offset fewer bells & whistles?
@bhaugen @KevinMarks @cwebber @neil @strypey
Beaker-published dat websites can present with an http domain name, in normal browsers. Firefox, as of recently, half-recognises dat protocol but AFAIK prompts viewing in beaker, if installed. Not sure yet. But I think that's as far as integration goes. Anyone out there understand this more fully?
A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.