💬 Re: Announcing IndieWeb Utils v0.4.0 (with reflections on the library)

Comments

In reply to: Re: Announcing IndieWeb Utils v0.4.0 (with reflections on the library)

Indieweb Utils looks pretty neat and there’s a few projects I’ve had on the backburner which would benefit from this.

I’d also be pretty tempted to look into moving Pushl over to it, just to cut down on my own code maintenance requirements, except it looks like it doesn’t have any support for asyncio, which is less-than-optimal for an I/O-bound tool which sends a bunch of bulk updates. Is there any interest in adding asyncio support?

💬 Re: Plurality and the IndieWeb

Comments

In reply to: Re: Plurality and the IndieWeb

@jamesg:

I am intrigued by the IndieWeb’s approach to plurality and building technologies that don’t serve the creation of monocultures or single ways of thinking about things. IndieWeb technologies help build plug-and-play social bridges. The technologies are your pipes. You get to decide how they connect and what you make with those pipes. This idea excites me to a great degree.

Could you explain what you mean by “plurality?” In the circles I run in it almost certainly means something different than what you mean by it, and the definition I’m familiar with is likely to be the more common one on the Internet in 2020 2022.

From context it seems like you’re talking about building a (distributed) voting/polling system, which is definitely an interesting topic to think about, and the first-cut approach would probably be to do something using fragmentions or otherwise having a u-vote-for (or similar) link either to an anchor on the page or to the resource being voted on (e.g. the image itself).