I’m looking at the site and right at the beginning it says:
> Standard.site provides shared lexicons for long-form publishing on AT Protocol. Making content easier to discover, index, and move across the ATmosphere.
Which part of these required a new protocol and couldn’t be built before @at existed? Seems to me we’re reinventing the wheel for I’m not entirely sure which benefit. But maybe someone who’s more into this part of the web can educate me on this.
> Which part of these required a new protocol and couldn’t be built before @at existed? Seems to me we’re reinventing the wheel for I’m not entirely sure which benefit.
The atproto folks went and categorized all of the other attempts to do this at the time. (They even had some I hadn't heard of!)
All of them make various tradeoffs. None of them were the set of tradeoffs the team wanted. So they needed to make some new things. That's really the core of it.
My sibling has one of the largest and most specific things, but this is the underlying reason.
Did that require an entire new protocol though? I am 100% sure that if Twitter, Facebook and all the other platforms decided that they want to offer a way to move around accounts they could do it.
The protocol is much more than data portability, it essentially turns the global social media system into a giant distributed system anyone can participate in at any point. Imagine if FB also let you tap into the event stream or produce your own event stream other FB users could listen to in the official FB app. That would be a pretty awesome requirement for all social media apps, yea?
I am not debating that. But this same reasoning applies to @at or any other implementation. You have to be willing to implement the features and use the protocol. So I still don’t see why this is any different.