fediverse — julian

FedCM: Sign-In-With-Big-Tech-Only or Sign-In-With-Whom-I-Prefer?

Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:38:16 +0000

New web standard proposed by Google for slicker Sign-In-With buttons props up Big Tech and undermines the independent social net. Let's fix that.

TL;DR: Web identity and open-tech activists needed to steer new Sign-In-With standard FedCM to support user choice of identity provider.

For the attention of federated systems developers, including Matrix, Fediverse and others.

It may be good to know about an issue going on with FedCM “Federated Credential Management” draft spec. Liquid Surf brings it to the attention of all federated systems fans in their blog post: Can FedCM improve the user experience of decentralized ecosystem ? . In short, the spec aims to make a slicker browser flow for the Sign-In-With-Xxx buttons.

To us who care about federated computer infrastructure, introduction of a new standard to streamline the sign-in flow might seem minor and remote, but there is a catch.

What Is FedCM?

FedCM, short for Federated Credential Management, is a new draft specification for web browsers, published by the Federated Identity Community Group and strongly driven by teams from Google. It represents an advancement in how websites manage user logins, when logging in through different identity providers (such as “Sign in with GitHub/Google/etc.”) while preserving user privacy... — Liquid Surf: Can FedCM improve the user experience of decentralized ecosystem ?

The Catch

The critical issue is, at present, the draft standard is likely to cement the monopolies of the big providers (like Google and Facebook) and leave out small providers. In short, the problem is the draft spec says the site we're logging into (called the RP) solely dictates what list of identity providers should be offered to the user. What will happen in that case? Most sites will offer only the BigTech identity providers. Read the blog post and the issue Allow IDP registration #240 for details.

... End Users looking to opt out of the limited federated identity login options available today are required to significantly compromise convenience because they are forced to manage a new set of credentials directly with the relying party, creating friction and usability challenges.

... Currently the proposed FedCM API ... assumes the relying party specifies a set of IDPs it supports login from. This model is largely a continuation of that described above and in many respects is just a browser mediated version of what we see most commonly on the web today.

What to do about it?

The proposal in Allow IDP registration #240 is, in short, not to have the RP site solely dictate what list of identity providers should be offered, but also to let the browser register the user's chosen identity providers and present those as options when a new login is requested.

... instead of the Relying Party specifying the IDPs it supports in the federation request, it communicates the capabilities it supports such as signature schemes, assertion formats and response modes. End-Users can then register providers they wish to use with the browser, which are then available as options to present to the End-User ...

Why Do We Need to Help?

(As I responded to '@thhck' in #fediverse:pixie.town)

The proposing team are saying lack of feedback from developers is holding back the acceptance of this extension.

Decentralising ID providers is key to the whole decentralised movement, including Fediverse, Matrix, self-hosters as well as the ability for independent businesses to provide comprehensive IT services without one of the tech giants playing gatekeeper.

We, all of us who care about federated/decentralised infrastructure, now need to push the draft Federated Credential Management “FedCM” standard to support “Sign In With” the user's choice of identity provider (which may be small, local, independent, hosted by one's school or enterprise or self, and so on). If this extension to the proposal does not get enough support to be accepted, we might get a standard that perpetuates the status quo of sites only offering Sign In With the giants like Google/Github/Facebook, ugh. That would be another death blow for user agency and privacy and variety.

Get Involved

Fedi devs, let's demo this truly user-centric version of FedCM, show us how awesome it is! Fedi fans, this might seem remote from our viewpoint but it's important for our future. Let's share this issue more widely among Fedi projects!

Please join us to discuss this:

Allow IDP registration #240 (in Github)
#fedcm-user-choice:trax.im (chat via Matrix)
Federated Credentials API: Developer feedback needed (SocialHub Discourse forum)
W3CCommunity channel (in Slack)

See contributing to FedCM and the Meetings of W3C Federated Identity CG. Agendas and minutes are public, and interested parties are being invited to present their case for making this extension.

FedCM “Federated Credential Management” draft spec. — central place for development of the spec — on Microsoft-Github
Allow IDP registration #240 — the extension we need to drive forward for user choice
Federated Credential Management API — W3C Draft Community Group Report, 19 January 2024
issue #240 comment mentioning lack of feedback from developers
The Downside of Conveniently Signing In With Google, Facebook, Twitter, or Apple — for context about (lack of) user choice — gizmodo, 2020-09
On FedCM's (un)suitability in Research and Education federations — Jisc Trust & Identity Services Blog, 2024-01

[EDITS: removed announcement of past meetings; added logo, quotes, TL;DR, call-outs, links; many text edits]

[Image source file, as Inkscape SVG: fedcm-my-choice-1.svg]

Follow/Feedback/Contact: RSS feed · Fedi follow this blog: @julian@wrily.foad.me.uk · matrix me · Fedi follow me · email me · julian.foad.me.uk Donate: via Liberapay All posts © Julian Foad and licensed CC-BY-ND except quotes, translations, or where stated otherwise

Who Cares Who Delivers Our Notifications?

Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:51:16 +0000

Android or iPhone — either Google or Apple delivers our messages — surely? You don't accept that?

Time I Learned: there are freedom-respecting phones.

People who do not want to depend on Google or have them control our devices are using android-compatible but not google-controlled phones, a.k.a. “degoogled phones”. We have been asking (ourselves) for several years if we can have google-free push notifications. Thanks to the developers of the UnifiedPush standard, the answer is now, “yes!”

But why?

You've probably heard of the Observer Effect. Partly influenced by hearing that someone is observing my blog from a social psychology angle relating to attitudes among the open source community, but also I was already thinking I should, I've decided to write more about why I write/build/care about the topics I choose. For a start I wrote a “Why Would I Care?” section for my latest post Google-Free Push Messaging for Google-Free Phones. Here, that section is published as an article on its own.

Why Would I Care?

Why would I care how my push notifications reach my phone? What difference does it make to me?

That's a good question. Inside a building that has a good heating, ventilation and air conditioning system, we don't notice the system, we just feel comfortable. With push notification delivery, part of the answer is the same: the system just does its job and our notifications come through. Whether the delivery channel is controlled by Google or by us or by someone else doesn't change that. The immediate, concrete result is the same. So it's not about wanting it to function differently; that's not why I care.

The difference it makes to me is about freedom, privacy, independence, self-agency. I am happy to have the choice to use any particular company's service, but I am not happy to be forced to use them, to have no choice, if I can't leave no matter how bad it gets. What if I don't like Google monitoring my notifications to know what I'm doing? What if I don't like to live in fear of offending them in some way and being cut off from their service and having no replacement option? What if I just don't want to condone their business model by using it, but I still want to be notified when I have messages?

Push notification delivery is one of the many invisible technical services that underpin our online communication systems. These kinds of services are implicitly considered to be part of the public infrastructure, something that we now assume is available to everyone.

When we allow ourselves to become dependent on any particular company's service, and yet do not regulate it as a public service provider, then we subject ourselves to the company's whims, priorities and values, which are different from ours. They will inevitably act against public interests.

Building publicly owned infrastructure based on open standards and freedom software is therefore essential to ensure the independent provision of services aligned with public needs and values.

I am one of the people who feels it is my place to use, promote and build non-proprietary public services, both for my own mental wellbeing and because I believe it is important for society.

It is the same reason why I support: open Ed-Tech, degoogled phones, #matrix, #fediverse, freedom software, open-source hardware, #rightToRepair.

Speaking as one of the people who prefer our devices not to be controlled by and dependent on Google:

What do we want? UnifiedPush!

When do we want it? Now!

I would love to work on any freedom tech project bringing UnifiedPush to a wider audience.

Google-Free Push Messaging for Google-Free Phones

Mon, 04 Dec 2023 12:42:55 +0000

UnifiedPush open-standard push messaging complements degoogled android-compatible phone OS's such as LineageOS.

The open standard UnifiedPush.org has now been created. While not a large number yet, a useful handful of apps already support UnifiedPush, including several matrix and fediverse apps. For its servers and the associated client-side “distributor” component, there are multiple successful implementations deployed.

The current situation is such that anyone can use UnifiedPush on an android-compatible device by installing their choice of UnifiedPush distributor app (which must run in the background), configuring it to connect to their chosen U-P server (compatible with chosen distributor), and then installing any number of U-P-aware apps which will then use it (without needing per-app configuration to do so).

Why Would I Care?

Why would I care how my push notifications reach my phone? What difference does it make to me?

Building publicly owned infrastructure based on open standards and freedom software is therefore essential to ensure the independent provision of services aligned with public needs and values.

I am one of the people who feels it is my place to use, promote and build non-proprietary public services, both for my own mental wellbeing and because I believe it is important for society.

It is the same reason why I support: open Ed-Tech, degoogled phones, #matrix, #fediverse, freedom software, open-source hardware, #rightToRepair.

Involving the OS ROM

In android-compatible OS ROM projects such as LineageOS, implementing some core support for the UnifiedPush.org standard now seems to me like the right way to go. Exactly what form of support is to be decided.

Some ways an OS like LineageOS could usefully be involved to improve the UnifiedPush experience are:

ensuring the U-P distributor app has a convenient way to be installed and permitted to run in the background, free from restrictions, because getting this right is critical and if the user installs the distributor manually it can be tricky to get right; (investigate: would it need to be a system app, or some kind of whitelisting (ugh), or be split into a system component and a user component, or what?)
providing a convenient way to let the user (or the OS distribution provider) configure the distributor's U-P server address: perhaps rather than using an ad-hoc UI provided by the distributor app, it could integrate with “accounts” settings.
potentially providing a system settings UI for monitoring the U-P connections and which apps are using them.

Thoughts on the role of microG. The purpose of microG as best I understand is to provide Google compatible APIs to apps which expect Google services. Underneath these APIs, it provides access to a mixture of actual Google services, alternative real services, and fake services. As far as I know it does not so far provide any non-Google APIs, and yet for push notifications the provision of UnifiedPush APIs might be a good fit for fulfilling its overall purpose as a compatibility layer. Or perhaps not, perhaps that is out of scope and should be in LineageOS or another add-on layer instead. I'm sure the folks involved will work out what is best.

Constraints, FCM Fallback, non-Android

Unlike the situation with some other google APIs, it is important to note that an OS compatibility layer such as microG cannot automatically divert the connections made by apps built using Google's FCM, to use U-P instead. The apps must be modified.

However, the inverse is possible: a UnifiedPush aware app can automatically “fall back” to using Google's FCM if U-P support is absent and FCM support is present. See details of the Embedded FCM Distributor in UnifiedPush documentation.

Non-Android devices can use UnifiedPush too, including Linux phones such as PinePhone and Purism Librem. The UnifiedPush D-Bus spec may be relevant. (On locked-down proprietary devices such as Apple's it is unlikely to be possible, nor to make much sense: FAQ.)

Packaging a UnifiedPush Distributor

A U-P distributor app could be built in to an OS or subsystem like microG but there is a significant down-side to that: it would support only one type, or at most a fixed small number of types, of U-P server. Choosing a distributor type is more of a whole OS packaging decision. In cases where the whole OS is related to a service provider of some kind (so not like LineageOS, but perhaps like Murena/Calyx/Graphene etc.), the service provider might choose to run a U-P server for their users and have their distributor automatically connect to it (with user consent/opt-in/opt-out). In the more generic/self-hosted case (like LineageOS) it makes more sense to leave it to the user to install their preferred U-P distributor.

I would love to see distributors of google-free phones, such as Murena, support google-free push notifications. I posted a brief sketch of a UnifiedPush Plan for Murena /e/-OS on their forum, without attempting to go into details of integrating the U-P distributor into the ROM.

History

A rough time line of UnifiedPush development. (From light research and having followed it through its development.)

2018: FOSS-Push planning
2019: OpenPush — defines the architectural concept
2020: UnifiedPush — building on OpenPush concept to a complete specification
2021: Gotify — a FOSS push system — was forked to add UnifiedPush support
2021: NextPush — NextCloud-based UnifiedPush system created
2022: ntfy — a FOSS push system — adds UnifiedPush support
now: more and more apps use UnifiedPush for google-free push support

Conclusion

Whatever the specifics of how any android-compatible OS ROM project might choose to proceed with google-free push support, the solution space enabled by UnifiedPush now exists. Speaking as one of the people who prefer our devices not to be controlled by and dependent on Google:

What do we want? UnifiedPush!

When do we want it? Now!

I would love to work on any freedom tech project bringing UnifiedPush to a wider audience.

See my other posts tagged... #unifiedPush #degoogled #awesomeFOSS

FediGov: Social Media Links for Government Websites

Sat, 23 Sep 2023 16:27:39 +0000

Nice campaign page! Fedigov.EU

Federated communication for public authorities

Communicate confidently and respectfully with the public

Congratulations to GNU/Linux.ch and FSFE-CH for this initiative! I love what you're doing here. I think maybe I want to get involved.

I'm a FLOSS dev and thinker, and recently blogged about how we need to be doing exactly this kind of campaign. I'm delighted that you are! Though I'm no PR expert I have some ideas. In my Social Media Links for A People-Centred Community, the messaging I made up begins,

You! You, university! You, sports club! You, local library, city council, school, church, youth group! Your social media links could look like this:

Join us in our own spaces! — [Mastodon] – [Pixelfed] – [Friendica] – [PeerTube] ... — [Blog] – [Fediverse] – [Matrix] ... We are also on commercial media: — [G] [A] [F] [A] [M] ...

It shows visually the desired emphasis on values, and suggests the organisation should include an footnote or pop-up pointing out to their visitors why they recommend channels that match the organisation's values, in contrast to the dratted Big Tech.

Now, it really helps that the fine people at GNU/Linux.ch and FSFE-CH have created a site along these lines. Now it's been done once, it makes it a whole lot easier to adapt and grow the idea. Targeting one specific sector is a smart move: readers in that sector feel it's more “personal” to them.

So, next, can we adapt the idea for other target sectors?

Let's make... “fedi-uni”, “fedi-sport”, “fedi-library”, “fedi-city”, “fedi-school”, “fedi-church”, “fedi-youth” campaign pages?

And share them.

I think I want to connect, maybe get involved. I have reached out to them.

Social Media Links for A People-Centred Community

#fediverse #awesomeFOSS #degoogled #campaign #outreach #openEdTech

Fediverse-Ideas #41: Bring Your Own IDentity (BYOID)

Sat, 23 Sep 2023 13:41:00 +0000

POSSE: I posted this in “fediverse-ideas” as Bring Your Own IDentity (BYOID) #41, on 2023-09-23. Comments are included below.

Related to development of all social (people-focused) communications and sharing systems, fediverse included.

Own Domain

We can't build people-oriented social tech in the way that Big Tech do, where they say “this is our system, you'll have an address @ our-big-tech-domain, and all your links belong to us.”

Earlier today I replied to Johannes Ernst who observed that people shouldn't need to think about the difference between someone's fediverse handle and their email address, they should be the same. I wrote,

@J12t Absolutely! We should just need “my address”. I've been writing about aspects of this. And it's strongly tied in with the value of having one's own address at one's own domain. Don't want my email addr to be me @ mastodon, nor my fediverse to be me @ gmail :–) rather I want them both me @ my-domain. And to make that efficient and affordable, servers (and server operators) must support Bring Your Own Identity #BYOID .

https://wrily.foad.me.uk/tag:ownDomain

Own Domain is a truly cross-platform issue. It applies to matrix just as to fediverse and others. It's about bringing the person to the centre.

A recent key insight I had was actually “my own” registered domain isn't necessary. A substantial part of the value is in having an address at a domain that isn't belonging to a particular one of the service providers we use, but in having the use of an address at a domain that belongs to someone, anyone, whom we trust to let us use it for the long term. Could be a company, one's government, a charity. The key is to be able to switch and mix service providers without borrowing a new and different address from each one.

Main issues include:

getting server software to support BYOID
getting server operators to support and encourage BYOID (and adapt to doing their brand recognition a different way)
making domain registration easier and cheaper and reliable for ordinary folks (includes sub issues such as: facilitating subdomain use, see Public Suffix List)
making domain management easy, standardised, automated, at least as far as enabling providers of matrix/mastodon/etc. be able to plug in their service to my domain with minimal effort on my part)

I'm presupposing, by bringing up this topic in this forum, that a majority of readers here will understand the reasons why this direction makes sense. (That's something I have tried to write about on my blog but, though I try, explaining and appealing to normies to understand the importance is not my forté.)

I feel like we're missing something, that having all my different protocol addresses matching isn't merely about being easy to remember, it's not a trivial nicety. It's somehow a key to building deeper integration of our personal data within our personal tech. It's hard to think of use cases that can't be achieved by linking to external sites the way we do now, but my intuition is integration can be done better this way.

And I think BYOID goes a huge way towards solving the account “portability” issue.

Yet our delightful new federated things, wonderful in themselves, are yet, still, being built as big tech mono-sites: “join us and get our lovely service at our address” (mastodon.anything, fedi-thing.whatever, matrix-circles, matrix.org, beeper.com, on and on add infinitum).

Only a few rays radiate in the right direction:

ye olde email (BYOID is widely available)
Blue Sky spec (but, sadly, not the blue sky central server)

(I thought I'd be able to name more.)

Running the service oneself, be it email or fedi or matrix, isn't easy. I self-host only in order to bring my own domain, not because I want to. Currently without self-hosting I explain it as I'm Unable To Be Me .

Discussion:

Social Coding FSDL matrix room #socialcoding-foundations:matrix.org (alternate link)

Idea #23 Domain names as handles

(EDIT 2023-12-23: Typo “people should –> shouldn't need to think”.)

glyn commented 2023-12-12:

Another advantage of BYOID would be to retain one's identity when migrating accounts between servers, as happens in the fediverse.

I can see the attraction of using domain names as identities as it leverages the current DNS infrastructure. However, it seems that the requirements for BYOID are fewer than those of domain names, so a much cheaper solution could be found.

Have you looked at identities via keyoxide.org and similar technology?

circlebuilder commented 2023-12-13:

FYI There's an issue on Federating Keyoxide.

glyn commented 2023-12-21:

One aspect is puzzling me. How would BYOID work when applied to more than one type of ActivityPub service, e.g. microblogging on a Mastodon instance and photo sharing on a pixelfed instance?

For example, if I used BYOID on both a Mastodon and a pixelfed instance, which instance would my id refer to? Or, putting it a other way, how could I refer to myself on one or other of the instances?

julianfoad commented 2023-12-23:

@glyn: Bring Your Own ID does not mean we have only one ID we can bring. We can still use a separate ID for each service. Let's say my preferred handle is “julian”. I can bring “julian@toot.mydomain” to the microblogging service, and bring “@julian@pix.mydomain” to the pixelfed service. (Or any other format that works, perhaps “@julian+{toot,pix}@mydomain”.) The essential point is that these ids are under my control (perhaps delegated to some third-party of my choosing) rather than controlled by the provider of my “toot” and “pix” services.

So, that's the first level.

In addition, I also write about how I would like to use one and the same ID for multiple services, here and in some of my blog posts. That's a more involved thing than Bring Your Own ID. I would like to explore that further but haven't yet, beyond observing that the syntax differences across different protocols (like whether to write a leading '@' sign) are superficial.

#ownDomain #POSSE #fediverse #matrix

Social Media Links for A People-Centred Community

Wed, 12 Jul 2023 10:21:01 +0000

You! You, university! You, sports club! You, local library, city council, school, church, youth group! Your social media links could look like this:

Join us in our own spaces! — [Mastodon] – [Pixelfed] – [Friendica] – [PeerTube] ... — [Blog] – [Fediverse] – [Matrix] ... We are also on commercial media: — [G] [A] [F] [A] [M] ...

with an explanatory footnote or pop-up:

Note: * Our primary social and discussion spaces belong to us. They are under our own control. In these spaces our organisation's values and rules apply: for example on membership eligibility, acceptable topics, age limits, real name requirements, historical archiving, data privacy, spamming, and other matters. * Accounts we hold on commercial services are subject to each respective service's control and terms and conditions, and as such are not under our control and do not necessarily comply with our own values and rules.

I want us to create a campaign of outreach, which we can show to organisations, which clearly and persuasively shows why and how they can have their own social and discussion spaces, and why they should elevate their own above commercial ones in their own outreach materials.

Many organisations currently promote only commercial social media. Typically they show a list of icons of the biggest commercial media. Some operate one or more self-owned social media, but where they show a list of options do not show any distinction between their own and the others. The software that organisations use to create their website often adds another bias by making it easy to show and link to big commercial (and mainly older) social media, and harder to include the icons and links to self-owned (as well as newer commercial) channels.

If I were to begin in grass-roots style, I might simply write to some organisations local to me. However, we could get the message across much more effectively if we work together.

We should put some effort into refining the wording, the presentation.
We need an artist's help with mock-ups.
We should invent a name, a branding, and a web site that we direct people to read about the proposition.
We should link it to related campaign issues such as privacy, autonomy, owning one's tools, free software, local economy.
We should investigate personalising the message: “this screen-shot shows your current web site; what do you think of this mock-up?”.
Of course we must direct the recipient to sources of support, ranging from learning more about the issue to how to obtain self-owned social media.

Then we should find ways of contacting a large number of relevant recipients.

Who could co-ordinate something like this? I am not a campaigns organiser. I would love to find people who can take on a project like this. Could you help?

Update 2024-04-30

Here is how the most excellent Framasoft does it:

Update 2024-04-30

Here is an idea. Replace silo icons with images of their owner.

(FB) (X-tw) (Inst) –> faces of (Zuck) (Musk) (Zuck)

This is an open letter. Please use, adapt, study, improve, and share it. I hereby license it CC-BY-SA.

FediGov: Social Media Links for Government Websites

#fediverse #awesomeFOSS #degoogled #campaign #outreach #openEdTech

Why Allow User Theming of Rooms/Channels/Messages?

Thu, 06 Apr 2023 09:47:33 +0000

In a discussion room about the Fediverse, bkil drew my attention to “The age of average” by Alex Murrell, and questions whether like cars, cities and coffee shops, all social media posts should end up looking the same. Why not let the senders and recipients style them?

Should we not expect and enjoy seeing messages or “posts” reflecting the creative expression of the different individuals and groups we interact with — our friends, family, colleagues, employers?

Yes, yes, YES! I've been thinking the same for Matrix, and it applies of course equally to the (ActivityPub) Fediverse too. But it's so “radical” to many people's ears today, accustomed to the strictly limited silo offerings from Big Tech.

I think the way I would explain is with Real World analogies like this: When I hear from my friend D, it's usually a picture-postcard and their writing is scrawly and fills all the space including the margins. When I hear from my friend E, it's usually a tidy note on posh quality off-white paper, with their logo in the corner.

I would LOVE to be able to receive the same richness in indie social protocols, for more than just aesthetic reasons.

I do not want to see this accomplished by the sender posting an image or an HTML rendered page, like today's marketing emails. That is still possible, but it is not the same: it is the sender publishing their chosen look in a take-it-or-leave-it manner. (I notice that many senders nowadays are not sending a plain-text alternative to their rich-formatted emails.)

Rather, I want our messaging tools to be encouraging both the sender and the recipient to configure a rich variety of display formatting. In effect, like artistic use of CSS, never mind what tech spec is used. But not particularly for the message “body” part, where formatting options for the text itself are already supported by many systems: sometimes these are appropriate but I don't always want people to use these kinds of text formatting. I am thinking more of theming a whole thread or room or channel or space, such as a decorative border, or coloured paper and ink. And affecting the surrounding interface, such as the way details of the sender are shown, but without faking the sender's identity. Indeed even affecting the functionality, such as the showing or hiding of response options. For example, one sender might discourage re-posts, or have no interest in being sent a “like”. And ALWAYS the recipient choosing whether to accept or ignore the sender's configuration.

There's more to this than merely social niceness: there's the business case. When I am using Matrix instead of Slack, if all my employer's matrix rooms and all my social chats are mixed up in the same client app, shown with the same theme and in the same list and the same UI buttons in the same places, then my experience has gone beyond the goal of consistency, it's gone to blandness, to absence of distinction. I need the work setting to be visually distinguished from my social setting, not always in every case but if and when and as much as I choose.

In fact I want to be able to put two (or more) app launchers on my smartphone, one that launches my favourite matrix client into my Matrix Space for Work, and another that launches the same client software but pointing into my Matrix Social Space, each running with its respectively configured theme, configurable up to the point where they look like two different apps. I want this to be able to feel like I am using two different systems, but in fact be interoperable so I can change my mind and move some chats/rooms/channels from one to the other or set up a third incarnation whenever I want to.

And there's more power to this than just the individuality of friends and the practical utility of separating work from social. When people are given tools to create and customise and be artistic, they grow in ownership and love of their interactions in their own digital presence. Instead of feeling like they are borrowing the tool, they start to feel like they own their tools, and adapt them and make them part of their creative life. I would aspire to be one of the makers of such tools.

Doesn't that sound like a tasty ingredient for cooking up a Peopleverse on top of the Fediverse?

fediverse — julian

FedCM: Sign-In-With-Big-Tech-Only or Sign-In-With-Whom-I-Prefer?

What Is FedCM?

The Catch

What to do about it?

Why Do We Need to Help?

Get Involved

Who Cares Who Delivers Our Notifications?

Why Would I Care?

Read More about UnifiedPush

Google-Free Push Messaging for Google-Free Phones

Why Would I Care?

Involving the OS ROM

Constraints, FCM Fallback, non-Android

Packaging a UnifiedPush Distributor

History

Conclusion

FediGov: Social Media Links for Government Websites

Fediverse-Ideas #41: Bring Your Own IDentity (BYOID)

Social Media Links for A People-Centred Community

Why Allow User Theming of Rooms/Channels/Messages?