I think it would be better articulated if comparisons to ActivityPub were made. Those are I believe two competing visions of Open Social defined as communication protocol, not a platform. Otherwise it just sounds like evangelizing employer and that compromises the whole “open” concept of the article, fairly.
The author surely knows about competing protocols but prefers at. It would be just as easy to argue the author is biased if a comparison was made. Maybe more informative though.
I thought about covering others at first but it ended up distracting from the point I wanted to make. I tried to make a strong case for this particular vision in this article. I could write something separate as a comparison, or maybe let other voices speak for their thing.
In short, I don’t think ActivityPub solves any of the stated problems (ability to walk away without cooperation; forking products; giving new life to old data). In that sense it doesn’t mirror “open source but for data” and doesn’t match the premise of my post.
I don't believe anybody else can do it with good start you've made. I think above is nice headline for some more complete assessment as a follow-up article. indeed!
