“Some folks have gotten themselves together as something they’re calling the Social Web Foundation, and I’ll cut to the chase: this is an attempt by #ActivityPub partisans to rebrand the confusing “fediverse” terminology, and in the process, regardless of intent, shit on everything else that’s been the social web going back twenty-five years.”
https://bix.blog/posts/holy-hell-the-social-web-did-not-begin-in-2008
While they’re harsh words, I hope @swf will receive this earnest feedback with grace and reconsider its positioning accordingly.
The gist of my own view was recorded here: https://writing.exchange/@erlend/113193156305344354
@erlend Yeah, "social web" is an oddly wide bracket to brand federated social media under. I understand why SWF chose it; for simplicity's sake is one reason, though it leaves so much more out of the equation.
Another reason might be that by now "federation"/"fediverse"/"fedi____" will make some people break out in a rash at the thought of picking one out of a thousand instances in a network that they maybe, maybe not can then find their friends on...
In the grander scheme of things though, I hope semantic debates like this won't detract from the SWF's mission but only hone its direction to a finer point.
cc @swf
@haverholm @erlend @swf it's not semantics. the phrase "social web" as it's used by SWF makes a particular claim to a whole section of the web that it didn't invent, of which it's merely riding the coattails. it's not just that they're using inaccurate language. they mean exactly what they're saying.
Federated networks serving as social glue and enabling social action - Usenet, Fidonet both federated and date back to 1980s.