My _opinion_ is that whatever really replaces / evolves existing commonly used communications protocols already has an uphill battle. Further, as Gchat / XMPP based chats showed (opinion observations): federation without a sufficiently rich baseline to ensure a basic user experience leads to fragmentation, silo-ing, and eventual death.
It has to fulfill the need of a common space for public discourse.
The specification must be open and free for all to use. There should be no artificial restrictions on who is able to develop tools including servers, clients, intermediary or subsystems, or provide a service to host any of them. Federation also introduces a higher risk of spam and bad actors; it's part of the price of freedom so the protocol should have an intended use pattern that addresses that type of issue; ideally without forcing the association of a 'real identity' to all use of the system. That won't solve all of the problems, and it adds a bunch of other problems. However a system of the commons may see users such as government organizations or heavily regulated industries where endpoints agree to use such an identity in some way.
It has to fulfill the need of a common space for public discourse.
The specification must be open and free for all to use. There should be no artificial restrictions on who is able to develop tools including servers, clients, intermediary or subsystems, or provide a service to host any of them. Federation also introduces a higher risk of spam and bad actors; it's part of the price of freedom so the protocol should have an intended use pattern that addresses that type of issue; ideally without forcing the association of a 'real identity' to all use of the system. That won't solve all of the problems, and it adds a bunch of other problems. However a system of the commons may see users such as government organizations or heavily regulated industries where endpoints agree to use such an identity in some way.
reply