A case for organisations running their own ActivityPub servers

The internet has always been about standards, otherwise it simply would not work. The visibility of these for the average user has diminished as large platforms have monopolised activities on the web and run them with their own invisible data structures.

Now the internet is the main form of communication there is a growing acknowledgement that organisations pushing updates to the internet need to do it in an open and and ideally internationally standardised format that allows it to disseminate easily and widely.

Standardising Public Information Publishing

An example of this is the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) that the NZ Metservice has implemented as a way of publishing their weather alerts, their reasons are well documented here but basically boil down to their reasons copied here:

• CAP has a defined standard. This means there is consistency in how it is implemented in different countries, making it easier for developers to use
• A single message can deliver consistent hazard information to multiple systems or end points thus enhancing warning effectiveness
• CAP alerts can be geographically targeted to a defined warning area
• CAP is a rich format capable of including maps, images, video and audio for improved accessibility
• CAP can also support multiple languages

Our local Council the Queenstown Lakes DIstrict Council (QLDC) is an example of an entity similar to the Metservice in that it has important information that needs to be published to a wide population all using different platforms and tools. For example:

• Roading alerts
• Local Emergencies
• Swimming pool and Library service updates

The QLDC currently publishes these to Facebook and on their website which limits their easy dissemination to those two platforms and developers willing to write non-standard code to scrape the data into other systems.

This information could easily be published using the ActivityPub Protocol and set free for users to manage their own interactions with and developers to pull into their platforms in standard ways.

Should an entity run it’s own presence much like they run their own website or email?

A major question is if the QLDC should simply make accounts on an existing Fediverse server, like they have on Facebook, or should stand up their own server that they have complete control over. We contend that the latter is the appropriate solution:

• Easily and cheaply segment information by running multiple accounts with recognisable handles:
  – wanaka-pool@social.qldc.govt.nz
  – queenstown-pool@social.qldc.govt.nz
  – …
• Aggregator handles could auto repost groups of handles i.e. wanaka@social.qldc.govt.nz would repost the pool, library, roading etc alerts in that area
• Publishing can be done from a web app signed into multiple accounts or automated from existing systems with established code libraries
• The software (i.e. gotosocial, snac) can be locked down to reduce security concerns
• Posts can be edited and deleted and either welcome public comment or have it filtered or disabled

Possible disadvantages

• Cost
  While the upfront cost of Facebook is free its cost to society and reliability as a civic actor is not stable. To run a dedicated presence would cost $500 – $1500nzd a year which does not seem much for wrestling back control of dissemination and making it easier for constituents to access public information
• Complexity
  It is a new thing to learn for the people managing the publishing. But it is in a known format, people are used to Social Media, and once people are onboard they find it refreshingly simple. No boosting, ads, gatekeepers.

@team

@team@blog.purewebhosting.nz @gwilymgj@mastodon.social

Standardising Public Information Publishing

I think you should discuss this with the @swf@socialwebfoundation.org group.
The issue of standardization is one of the most delicate in the relationship between the fediverse and the mastosphere, and will likely be resolved in different ways based on the so-called "doocracy." It will be important for it to adhere as closely as possible to W3C standards and be conceived in simple terms.

Some platforms like Friendica have already solved the formatting of georeferencing and event data. (cc @heluecht@pirati.ca is right?)

Should an entity run it’s own presence much like they run their own website or email?

It depends a lot on the type of organization.

A nonprofit organization could simply choose to be hosted by a federated social network in its own country. A public institution could do the same, but first consider opening a proprietary instance, since, depending on the institution's importance, the traffic flow could become problematic. A private company, on the other hand, has the obligation to create its own instance.

If I were to manage an organization's faith migration, I would make these assessments by evaluating the TOSs of the instances in my country and, if I found one suitable, I would agree on my inclusion in advance with the instance administrators.

I also remember that careful management of a federated WordPress or Ghost server is already an interesting solution, just as a federated NodeBB forum allows you to wonderfully control the moderation of your audience of interested users.

Possible disadvantages

Here we must be realistic: using commercial social media for your organization's communication is NEVER perceived as a problem! It will be difficult to obtain the exact costs of managing a social media account, and the employees (or vendors) who manage an organization's social media account are resistant to change.

My advice is to find out in advance whether the organization already uses automated publishing systems, whether these systems include at least the Mastodon API, and whether these systems include engagement measurement systems; If they don't use automatic publishing, you can find a system that helps them manage everything more easily.

I may be unpopular, but an organization shouldn't be forced to do without commercial social media! Any organization's social media strategy should have three ethical obligations:

1. Maintain a presence on the most popular commercial social media platforms that are consistent with its audience, to ensure maximum reach.
2. Maintain a presence on an open-source social network that allows users to follow the organization and interact with it without being tracked, profiled, or having their data transferred to problematic countries, because this is a guarantee for its customers/users.
3. Prioritize communication on the open social network, publishing content on the federated account earlier and more carefully, and possibly attempting to move communication to the federated account.