All the people criticizing competing decentralized protocols owe it to the #ActivityPub-community to work *hard* on making the spec implementable in a straightforward and incremental way.
"Build for ActivityPub or you're harming us all" is unreasonable for anyone to say given the ambiguity of the spec and the effort required to implement it in its current form.
@joelving we have a good primer on the W3C wiki. I am writing a book for O'Reilly. There are good materials on the web. Developing for other standards does everyone harm. Anyone who is stuck is welcome to ask me personally. If your only choice is developing for another standard or doing nothing, do nothing.
@evan
I know that's what you think, and I very much disagree.
There are good materials and while they help, they do not make it anywhere near straightforward to build for the Fediverse.
Building for specific implementations is easier, but that kinda defeats the purpose.
@joelving there are dozens of AP implementations. Clearly, it's not impossible to implement. It can and should and will be easier. That's no argument for undermining this network. The premise is flawed and the conclusion does not follow.
@evan
Of course it's not impossible, but that's a pretty low bar.
I do not agree that it's a goal in itself to get everyone communicating using AP. A lot of the values underlying AP, I agree with and are worth servicing, but any particular protocol does not in my eyes deserve the same consideration.
@joelving protocol standards help more software and more people stay connected. A multiplicity of protocols inhibits those connections.
@evan “A multiplicity of political parties inhibits democracy.” “A multiplicity of choices inhibits the economy.” Evan, I understand AP was your creation, but stop embarrassing yourself. Just take the (fair) criticism and move on.
What was that quote about those who advanced a field when young becoming the biggest obstacles to its progress when old?
