@evan @djsf @bengo Hmm I think maybe the difference is I'd like them to implement but not be in charge. The power dynamics would be so imbalanced compared to anything else. IMO it'd be nice if AP was more like HTTP where we had the core more set in stone unlike how stuff like Group Ware and email got turned into something non–corpo impls couldn't coexist with easily.

@mauve @djsf @bengo I think that makes a lot of sense, too.

I also think having it more widespread, with lots of implementations, makes it less likely that any one can dominate the network.

@evan @djsf @bengo yeah! I'd love to see them put out implementations based on the current specs and gain community trust before going behind closed doors to make decisions on something that is used by thousands of people that could be harmed by corporate control 🤷

@evan @mauve @djsf @bengo "Lots of implementations" is not enough to prevent domination. If one implementation represents 90%+ of the AP Fediverse (like Mastodon does currently), domination is a real and significant risk. If Threads implements some variant of AP, they could potentially become the new dominant implementation.

@steve @evan @djsf @bengo Yeah but will existing fediverse users even give a shit about it or its standards? These are spaxes people made for theor communities and to talk to other small communities. If we wanted millions of users one the one big instance we'd already be on facebook or whatever.

@steve @evan @djsf @bengo Like when they inevitably try to add ads to AP or whatever shit we can give them the finger and fork from any impl that's shitty enough to go with it. Prople thay want big social media corps can go ahead and use em, and existing AP communiyies can do fine without it.

I think it's mostly the monolith instances like .social that will cave to incorporate whatever facebook wants of them