The #Fediverse should have public chatrooms.
@panos Matrix is part of the Fediverse https://matrix.org/docs/chat_basics/public-rooms/
@isAutonomous@karlsruhe-social.de yes, I use matrix, we also have our rooms there, but I meant on ActivityPub, not "decentralized internet" in general.
@panos the problem is that the ActivityPub design and protocol doesn't really lend itself to chat.
The fundamental design is more like email, with messages queued in inboxes and outboxes as they're to be shuffled around instances in bursts as resources are available.
It's kind of just the wrong infrastructure to support chat.
@panos doable? Sure.
Just like an adjustable wrench can be used as a hammer.
But.... not ideal, and it's worth keeping that in mind.
@volkris@qoto.org @isAutonomous@karlsruhe-social.de using two completely different protocols like ActivityPub and Matrix for what is basically online communication is also not ideal. I'd like one fedi account where I can keep up with people's public content, and also chat with people.
@panos well it's like using a screwdriver for a screw and a hammer for a nail: very different use cases and so two tools to handle them.
The requirements of asynchronous, unreliable posting at scale vs synchronous, reliable chatting one on one are very different use cases. It's not surprising that different tools would be needed for the two.
It's a case where the jack of all trades to handle both would likely be too general to handle neither case optimally.
@volkris@qoto.org @isAutonomous@karlsruhe-social.de Misskey has (had) chat, Pleroma has chat. It's doable, it's proven. And ActivityPub is supposed to be a great base to build on, so I'm sure there would be some way to standardize a chat function.