@hongminhee@hollo.social

One thing I keep coming back to when comparing and AT Protocol: ActivityPub is basically a convention on top of the stuff we already have. An actor is a JSON-LD document you GET. An inbox is an endpoint you POST to. If you already run a website, you can bolt this on without changing the site's basic shape. Ghost didn't set out to join the , and then years later it could, just by adding an endpoint.

AT Protocol feels less like that to me. Running a PDS means a signed repo, a Merkle search tree, a firehose, a DID. It's not a layer you add to an existing site. It's closer to standing up another backend beside it.

I think that's why ActivityPub keeps making sense to me. You can join later. You don't have to have built the whole thing with federation in mind from day one.

1 reply

@openrisk@mastodon.social · Reply to 洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) :nonbinary:

@hongminhee activitypub has a top-down feel, abstracting "social web" concepts and indeed sticking (mostly) within the Web conventions. It is not very prescriptive about implementations.

In comparison ATproto is more of a bottom-up design, in a sense the bluesky code is the documentation of the protocol. Important design choices target a certain type of "scaling".

Its quite fascinating and revealing that such different approaches, help create the same "twitter" microblogging illusion.