> As you are somebody who is responsible for stewarding the ActivityPub specification
I am not associated with the W3C in any way, and had absolutely no hand in creating ActivityPub. Chris Webber and many others deserve that credit. I don't attend the SocialCG meetings either (which are open to all).
The most I can say is I've implemented a library implementation in Go (there are other Go projects), and I voice my opinion in the community.
> I am seriously disappointed by this dismissive attitude.
Dismissive? My apologies, that's not what I am going for. I'm precisely showing how certain folks' expectations in the free speech community were unrealistic and showing a mature technology that precisely delivers what they want.
Consider what ActivityPub is not: it is not a way to physically get your free-speech in byte form forcefully delivered to others on the network. That's what multiple free-speech folks have repeatedly drawn the line at when I poked and prodded what their disappointment stems from. Instead, to get this technological capability, one needs to switch to blockchain or FreeNet protocols as this is what they do. The former actually requires consensus whereas the latter doesn't! ActivityPub as a technology does not guarantee any of this.
I think free speech is important (I wrote a whole damn blog post about it, and here I am writing more), and I think there are important conversations to be had around it. But complaining about ActivityPub not being a censorship-proof technology ("I got banned from one instance for being too conservative") is not a productive discussion to be had. There's better ones out there.
I am not associated with the W3C in any way, and had absolutely no hand in creating ActivityPub. Chris Webber and many others deserve that credit. I don't attend the SocialCG meetings either (which are open to all).
The most I can say is I've implemented a library implementation in Go (there are other Go projects), and I voice my opinion in the community.
> I am seriously disappointed by this dismissive attitude.
Dismissive? My apologies, that's not what I am going for. I'm precisely showing how certain folks' expectations in the free speech community were unrealistic and showing a mature technology that precisely delivers what they want.
Consider what ActivityPub is not: it is not a way to physically get your free-speech in byte form forcefully delivered to others on the network. That's what multiple free-speech folks have repeatedly drawn the line at when I poked and prodded what their disappointment stems from. Instead, to get this technological capability, one needs to switch to blockchain or FreeNet protocols as this is what they do. The former actually requires consensus whereas the latter doesn't! ActivityPub as a technology does not guarantee any of this.
I think free speech is important (I wrote a whole damn blog post about it, and here I am writing more), and I think there are important conversations to be had around it. But complaining about ActivityPub not being a censorship-proof technology ("I got banned from one instance for being too conservative") is not a productive discussion to be had. There's better ones out there.