There is no better. Maybe they pick a name that’s more intuitive for you, but it’d be less intuitive for someone else.

They have a pronunciation guide in their FAQ on the website. There is no branding that would be obvious/intuitive to everyone

This is nonsense. The fediverse isn’t cryptocurrency. Having 51% of the fediverse doesn’t give you any more control than having 1%. If your instance(s) implement a feature that the rest of the fediverse doesn’t like, they can defederate.

Other instances either react by defederating, but because they only have 49 percent, due to network effects, they get extinct

If 49% of the fediverse defederates from the other 51%, it is now 100% of a new, smaller fediverse. You can’t just claim that “network effects” will cause them to go extinct. Whether those instances have enough userbase to sustain a cohesive network depends on the actual number of instances/users. And the fediverse has sustained itself for over a decade with less than the current ~2 million accts and most of that time it had substantially less than 1 active accts.

It’s not sustainable to keep offering poorly designed solutions. People need to understand some basic things about the system they’re using. The fediverse isn’t a private space and fediverse developers shouldn’t be advertising pseudo-private features as private or secure.

Sure, but that’s already solved on the fediverse by using HTTP Signatures and isn’t related to Authorized Fetch.

and having a bot thrashing a server indexing everything

This is a completely separate argument and one that we already have mechanisms for. Servers can use status codes and headers to warn about rate limits and block offenders.

It is also one thing to read/interact with a site as that adds value to the site as a whole

A search index adds value as well; that’s why this keeps coming up. And, again, there are existing mechanisms to handle this. A robots.txt file can indicate you don’t want to be crawled and offenders can be IP blocked

I don’t think an admin’s permission has anything to do with it. If you post publicly on the fediverse, your posts are public. You should have the option to opt out of any indexing (just like you do for the rest of the open web). But saying its ok for you to read this post if it happens to come across your feed but you shouldn’t be allowed to find it via a search is ridiculous. Users get to make the choice with each post whether its public or not, but they don’t get to control how people consume those public posts.

That post wasn’t claiming that a search engine would only be used by trolls; it was explaining that they shut down their project because a chunk of the fediverse thinks that and complain about any search engine projects. Discoverability is one of the network’s biggest challenges and a search engine could really help with that.

They are different because most users weren’t aware of XMPP. They weren’t making a conscious choice to use an open standard. The fediverse, on the other hand, has grown specifically because people are seeing the value of an open ecosystem.

When google started removing XMPP support, users weren’t aware and didn’t care (other than losing contact with a few holdouts). If Meta implements AP support and then removes that support or modifies it so that it breaks some of expectations of the fediverse, most users will move to instances that don’t use Meta extensions. Meta can not take your instance or make it use their extensions, so an open fediverse will always exist.

I use TiddlyWiki via TiddlyPWA I find it works way closer to the way my brain works

exactly! The end result of EEE is basically the state we’re already in. I also don’t believe that’s what Meta intends. Despite how a lot of ppl here feel about it, the fediverse isn’t worth the effort of EEE. I think its more likely that Meta knows it’s on its last leg and is looking for something to latch on to (see also: their failed metaverse initiative). And the EU’s recent regulatory drive probably makes the fediverse look even more useful for Meta to attach itself to

No it doesn’t because you can’t extinguish a publically available standard when anybody can write their own software. XMPP is the horror story used to warn about EEE, but it still exists. The fediverse is a small network right now. If Meta tried to EEE it, server admins who don’t want to participate in a Meta-controlled network would not implement Meta’s extensions. The network would splinter into a Meta-fediverse and the actual fediverse, which would be smaller than it is now but still exist as a free and open network that could continue to grow.

They can’t turn off our servers, or force us to implement their tech, or stop us from implementing freedom/privacy preserving features.

EDIT: The reason EEE did so much damage to XMPP was because most users weren’t aware of it. XMPP got so big because non-tech savvy users didn’t even know they were using it. So when Google starting phasing it out users didn’t even realize it, they only maybe realized they couldn’t talk to one or two people now. But the fediverse has always been an explicit alternative to corporate social media and advertised that it is built on open standards that are not controlled by corporations. Its one of the key factors in a lot of the userbase’s decision to be here. If a split were to happen, that would leave the remaining open fediverse still large enough to sustain itself (even if its smaller than it is at this moment).

You can’t really Embrace, Extend, Extinguish an open standard. Anybody can continue to use the unextended version and that’s exactly what would happen if Meta tried it. They can’t force servers to update or implement meta-specific features

People who say that are generally talking about the signup where you have to pick an instance. And then there’s the worry over which other servers yours federates with. If you isolate your attention to a single instance, then all those worries go away.

The same already happens on the fediverse in regards to mastodon itself. A lot of people discuss the fediverse almost wholly in terms of mastodon.

They used it in a perfectly acceptable and understandable way. The definition you’re describing as sarcastic is an official meaning of the word. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patronize

They don’t need ActivityPub for that. Nearly everything on the fediverse is public and scrapable. If they want to monetize fediverse data, they already can

It’s an explicit goal of ActivityPub, but mastodon implemented its own bespoke API instead of the ActivityPub Client to Server (C2S) API. Apps got developed for mastodon using its API and other services implemented the masto API instead of C2S to get app support.

And anytime you bring up C2S to current projects, they brush it off. So it seems like the grand idea of the fediverse is way far off and not likely to happen soon.

ActivityPub can support tags with spaces, even though no fediverse platform allows you to write tags like that. The name of the tag can be pretty much whatever you want, as long as it has a valid URL.

That wouldn’t make them incompatible with the fediverse. ActivityPub can support tags with spaces, even though no current fediverse platform allows it. A post with a hashtag with spaces would still federate to other services and if that services is robust enough, should still be linked up so that you can click it to see the tag feed.

I wasn’t claiming note was the first term used to refer to them only that it’s been used to refer to them for a long time