(#zbsrabq) @prologic I see: I was speaking in the end user's perspective tho, I suppose those concerns only really affect the pod owner? And, if that is the case, giving a pod owner the ability to toggle AP integration on/off us probably good enough to mitigate those concerns?

(#zbsrabq) @prologic to be fair, I don't really see a difference here: with the integration, users still only see the feeds they choose to read (either as a twtxt or AP), right? Or this is more a problem of the integration making the network "grow too fast"?

(#zbsrabq) I'm worried that Yarn will become just another ActivityPub frontend. This integration threatens to split the community in two. Users of Twtxt clients without ActivityPub support won't want to follow Yarn users because they'll be engaged in conversations that are inaccessible to standard Twtxt clients. It will only force the split deeper if ActivityPub is an option to be toggled by users or pod operators.

(#zbsrabq) _And mostly whether it’s even a good idea at al, and if we should continue or not?_ I think that activitypub in yarn is a great feature! And also one of the easier ones to set up and get going. And as I said last week - I think it's a important features - and will drive adoption. It is optional as well - so if one does not want it - just not turn that feature on. I personally was missing the fact that I could not easily follow others before you added activitypub, but now I can choose to follow them, which is great.

(#zbsrabq) @darch I really like the distinction made here between: > Freedom of speech / Freedom to shout Basically every other social media platform really. All centralised ones like Facebook, Twitter, etc, and push-based ones fall into this category too 👌 Where what we have built with Yarn.social / Twtxt is really: > Freedom to listen Where we have full control of what we "pull", or not (Follow/Unfollow). I also like what we were talking about in the call where we describe the interactions as: > I write something down on paper, and post it outside my mailbox/house. > Someone drives by and reads it and is intuiged. > That someone then writes down their own thoughts and replies on their own paper and posted it by their mailbox. > You come along and see it one day, and decide to further erply. In this way Yarn / Twtxt is _much slower_, but that's by design.

(#zbsrabq) @prologic I see: I was speaking in the end user's perspective tho, I suppose those concerns only really affect the pod owner? And, if that is the case, giving a pod owner the ability to toggle AP integration on/off us probably good enough to mitigate those concerns?

(#zbsrabq) @mckinley This is true actually and you are 100% right

(#zbsrabq) > It is optional as well - so if one does not want it - just not turn that feature on. If we decide that the benefits outweigh the risks and accept that differences (even though we'll do our best to bridge the gaps) -- we'll have to make "Enabling" / "Disabling" an **actual** thing. being an experimental feature flag is not enough, feature flags are designed to be short-lived until promoted, or decided against. The question then becomes more along the lines of: - Do we want a toggle for Activity Pub at the Pod level? (I assume yes) - Do we want a toggle for Activity Pub discovery at the User level?

(#zbsrabq) I don't like where this is going with a push-model like Activity Pub being mixed up with yarn social. Activity Pub might be all for **freedom of speech**, but with the issue that @prologic outline the is a real potential of it turning into **freedom of shouting**. What I really like about twtxt is that is based on a principle of **freedom to listen** where you can chose who to follow and are not force-fed someone else's agenda, that you don't care about or want to deal with.

(#zbsrabq) @prologic to be fair, I don't really see a difference here: with the integration, users still only see the feeds they choose to read (either as a twtxt or AP), right? Or this is more a problem of the integration making the network "grow too fast"?