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, removed on everything else that’s been the social web going back twenty-five years.
Technically the blog author is right. Sure, the social aspects of the web go back to the very first chat rooms, but okay. Let’s set a backstop at web 2.0’s blogs. So what is his point, let’s burn down this new foundation on a technicality before it gets off the ground?
Also technically, “social web” is super imprecise when clearly the organisation is supposed to promote and highlight federated platforms. Sounds like somebody did a super lazy brainstorm without looking up from their belly button to consider this exact fallout.
I have the feeling the same somebody will be on the market for a new domain name pretty soon.
There’s quite a few people who think the social web is a good term for what this is; websites talking to each other, allowing for two-way communication across platforms.
Not everybody loves the word “Fediverse”. And then for those who like it, the connotations might be somewhat different.
You can’t really do anything right in this field, as there are thousands of people ready to cry their hearts out at any given decision. But calling communication between web platforms the social web is not extremely controversial, and it’s a bit easier to sell to a wider audience (government agencies, media outlets, people who don’t know what HTML is) than going on an on about some obscure Fediverse. Different uses.
I agree with a lot of your points, but this is probably the objectively truest one 🙂