Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout
Note Detail
Reply to @AvSchroeder@fedihum.org
Nicolas Fressengeas@fresseng@universites.social (2026-07-28 20:58:19)
@AvSchroeder @lavaeolus @UlrikeHahn @Bonfire
They do not want to, and I understand why : it is to keep it truly federated.
Furthermore, running such an instance has costs. My feeling is that it is the responsibility of the scientific community to host OSN servers.
We manage to do it for emails (SMTP protocol) : why not for OSN (ActivityPub protocol) ?
cc @pierre @unif
---Reply---
Bonfire@Bonfire@bonfire.cafe (2026-07-28 21:25:38)
@fresseng@universites.social correct, and it's also responsibility of the scientific community to engage and codesign with us the exact features, user experience and goverance models that are needed for open science to thrive beyond capitalistic and closed platforms.
The goal of the Open Science Network has always been to give the scientific community a real opportunity to shape and govern not only its own servers, but also the software roadmap, rather than reproducing a top-down model in which yet another company builds features for others to adopt without meaningful participation :)
@AvSchroeder@fedihum.org @UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org @lavaeolus@fedihum.org @pierre@universites.social @unif@universites.social @jorgeluis@mastodon.pub.solar
Reply
---Replies---
Nicolas Fressengeas@fresseng@universites.social (2026-07-28 22:14:14)
@Bonfire
Hum... looks like we need a community for that 😉
https://bonfirenetworks.org/posts/why-community-matters-groups-as-the-next-step-for-the-fediverse/#what-about-old%E2%80%91fashioned-forums
@UlrikeHahn @lavaeolus @jorgeluis @pierre @unif @AvSchroeder