Webmention already exists and is service agnostic and interoperable. My assertion is that protocols for handling the social function of ActivityPub predate ActivityPub's development and could be unified by a client without creating any new protocols that aren't already in use, so what is it that ActivityPub is doing better than those protocols that justifies intermediating the social graph with group servers? I'm sure there are good answers to this question, I just want to know what they are with more clarity.
Comment on ActivityPub vs RSS Atom etc. Why Federate instead of aggrigate?
Steve@communick.news 2 days ago
Why do we advocate for, and pour hours of development into, ActivityPub rather than building clients which add a social layer to existing content distribution and communication protocols?
If clients built their own social layer, those would be limited to users of that client. If they opened up the social layer with an interoperable protocol, now you just made ActivityPub again.
Coopr8@kbin.earth 2 days ago
rglullis@communick.news 2 days ago
Yes, but almost no developer is looking at ActivityPub as a protocol to “add a social layer to their websites and applications”. Instead, we are stuck in this “let’s replicate the centralized social networks! With blackjack! And hookers! And ActivityPub!” way of thinking.