Just finished listening to an interview with @bsky.app CTO @pfrazee.com by @mike on the @dot_social podcast.

[jmax@mastodon.social]

@liaizon @bsky.app @pfrazee.com @mike @dot_social Fuzzy boundaries are a characteristic of healthy social institutions.

[liaizon@social.wake.st]

@jmax @bsky.app @pfrazee.com @mike @dot_social ohhhh I like that idium

[mackuba@martianbase.net]

@liaizon Yeah, like I wrote here, I think it's probably more confusing than helpful to make the term "Fediverse" include Bluesky… https://martianbase.net/@mackuba/114484050397122882

[liaizon@social.wake.st]

@mackuba this gets mucly pretty fast tho. If I have 100 followers and 50 of them are from Bluesky (via a bridge like Bridgy or via something like @wafrn) where/what are the interactions happening in? "I got followers on the open social web" just feels weird to me.

[julian@community.nodebb.org]

liaizon@social.wake.st I think I need a Venn diagram for how the terms "fediverse", "open social web", "social web", "indieweb", etc. all relate to one another.

[yala@degrowth.social]

@julian
Can't we just keep saying "on the web"? To me all this is a continuation of that lineage.
@liaizon

[nelfan@mastodon.zaclys.com]

@liaizon
The Fediverse is a range of different open source softwares, all based on the #activitypub and federated by this protocol which has been designed to allow a federation of independent and totally autonomous instances with full control by their administrators. That's called "decentralisation".

@bsky.app @pfrazee.com @mike @dot_social

[nelfan@mastodon.zaclys.com]

To be part of the Fediverse, those sofwares must have been conceived in order to allow the decentralisation.
So, #Threads is not in the Fediverse.

#BlueSky may become interoperable with the Fediverse and may be considered with gentleness but it will never become a part of the Fediverse.
@bsky.app @pfrazee.com @mike @dot_social @liaizon

[liaizon@social.wake.st]

@Nelfan @bsky.app @pfrazee.com @mike @dot_social but you've already in a conversation right now that has participation from people across other protocols. I don't think it makes any sense to define the fediverse in terms of the protocols that it contains. If you can communicate with someone bidirectional and exchange replies and reactions/likes then you are part of the fediverse. But of course we don't actually get to decide what the fediverse "means" as usage grows

[mackuba@martianbase.net]

@julian @liaizon There isn't even one definition of those!

[nextgraph@fosstodon.org]

@julian @liaizon here it is

[julian@community.nodebb.org]

nextgraph@fosstodon.org I see, much clearer now