If the web itself is the social network, the website is the atomic element of that network. We just need it to be easy to create a website, and then connect it with others.
The cool thing is this could take a million different forms, on both the creation and connecting sides.
The website builder could be generic and user-friendly, like Figma, or more niche and purpose-made, like a blogging platform.
Connecting sites is as easy as linking to them. So a site-building platform could make it easy for people to manage these links to friends' sites (e.g. a "blogroll"), and then publicly display those links or not.
I feel like you only really need other protocols when you want to notify people and/or have a private feed.
Of course blogrolls publicly show everyone you "follow" or "friend" on your site. But additional protocols and formats, like RSS for plain subscribing and #ActivityPub for notifying others, could enable a private home feed and everything around that.
@strypey Yep! The vision is basically identical, and some of those standards could be really useful!
I think where we differ is in usability. IndieWeb seems more oriented toward / only accessible to people who understand web development.
I'd like to make this stuff as easy to use as social media is. So the tech isn't the selling point, but the long-term stability and creative latitude are.
Would it be fair to say the IndieWeb folks are about a DIY approach to the web, while you have more of a service approach? I agree that both are legitimate and useful to different kinds of people.
A small, intentional community for poets, authors, and every kind of writer.