@Stefan Bohacek Does "native" in the first option only stand for ActivityPub as the base protocol of a project, something that is not optional and cannot be turned off?

In that case, Hubzilla and (streams) do not fall into this category.

Or does it stand for protocols that have their own ActivityPub support, be it as the primary protocol, be it as a secondary protocol in their core, be it as an optional plug-in which nonetheless is an official, first-party plug-in?

In that case, Hubzilla and (streams) do fall into this category.

The poll would have been more interesting if set up someplace else than Mastodon with more than four options:

• Are Mastodon
• Are built on ActivityPub and support nothing else
• Are built on ActivityPub and may support something else
• Officially support ActivityPub, regardless of primary protocol
• Can use ActivityPub, even if it's through a third-party bridge
• Are connected to something that supports ActivityPub

The third option includes e.g. Friendica and GoToSocial which add support for other protocols/projects such as Diaspora*.

The fourth option includes Hubzilla and (streams) which aren't based on ActivityPub, but which support ActivityPub through an official add-on that comes with the installation.

The fifth option includes everything that needs Bridgy Fed.

The sixth option includes e.g. Diaspora* and GNU social, both of which are federated with Friendica and Hubzilla which, in turn, can use ActivityPub. They can't directly communicate with Mastodon, but Diaspora* and Mastodon users can comment on the same Friendica or Hubzilla post.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #ActivityPub

theres like 3 major problems with the 'natively uses activitypub' definitions:

- it excludes the hubzilla-lineage
- it ignores the history of the fediverse, with both ostatus and diaspora*
- a significant group of people tends to exclude right-wing fedi from the definition of the term fediverse, whose servers do use activitypub

@laurenshof Yes, defining the fediverse only in terms of which protocol(s) it uses is just one way to do it. Not everyone thinks this way.

My main point here is to show that one common response to the Bluesky bridge and its original opt-out-by-default approach now sounds like this:

If you don't mind federating with fediverse servers, how come you complain about a non-fediverse server?

@laurenshof
It would actually sound the same to many (some?) if you defined the fediverse by some kind of ideology. Even if Bluesky adopted ActivityPub natively, much like your example with Gab and Truth Social.

So there is a lot of consistency within the different groups opposing Bluesky/the bridge.