Follow buttons here act as you, not as @rmendes-net.
@rmendes-net isn't following anything yet.
RSC — Really Simple Conversations — is a feeds-native social timeline: people who post here and people who post on their own site are equal citizens. Everything travels as RSS — posts, replies, whole conversations — so following, threading, and federation work with nothing but open feeds.
My goal with RSC is not just to publish the code of how it operates and interop but also to publish the spec/plans used to build the code itself.
RSS can absolutely participate in virality.
If a million people subscribe to a feed, read a post, and some of them redistribute it through their own feeds, websites or social accounts, the post can become viral. Virality is an emergent pattern of circulation, not a button owned by a platform.
What RSS provides first is distributed visibility: reach created across many independent readers and publishers, without one algorithm deciding what everyone should see.
I am not going to reconstruct the entire disagreement that prompted this post.
Some of the public exchanges have been deleted. Other parts happened privately or by email. I have no interest in tracing every sentence, assigning blame line by line, or producing a forensic account of who said what. That would only prolong a conflict that has already taken up too much space.
But people noticed that I removed my participation from the project, and I have started receiving emails from strangers asking what happened. So I want to explain the broader issue, without turning a personal disagreement into public theatre.
Open-source collaboration does not necessarily become easier because AI makes it easier to inspect code, identify bugs, produce patches, and write detailed issues. In some ways, it becomes considerably harder.
You can spend time formulating an issue carefully and professionally, only for it to be perceived by the repository owner as a list of orders.
That owner is, of course, entirely free to reject the contribution. They can close the issue, say that it is outside the project’s scope, explain that it is not on the roadmap, or simply decide that they do not want to pursue it. There are thousands of legitimate ways to govern an open-source project.
Governance by burnout is not one of them.
When you use an AI tool to help document a problem, the resulting issue may contain precise examples, references to specific lines, screenshots, reproduction steps, and concrete observations gathered by running the software outside the environment of its original author.
That can be useful. It can also be overwhelming.
The problem is that the intention behind such a contribution may not survive the way it is received. You may believe that you are documenting a bug thoroughly. The maintainer may see a wall of text, an unsolicited audit, or an attempt to dictate the project’s direction.
You can ask questions first. You can soften the language. You can repeatedly state that the maintainer is free to ignore the suggestion. None of that guarantees collaboration when the other side does not experience the contribution as collaborative.
I have submitted issues and pull requests to several projects, including repositories connected to my professional work. Some of those contributions were written with the help of AI—not because I could not be bothered to write them myself, but because the tool already had the context: the code, the logs, the behaviour I had observed, and the steps that exposed the bug.
When the issue was valid, it was investigated. When the patch fixed a real problem, it was reviewed. Sometimes it was merged directly. Sometimes the maintainer rewrote it to match the project’s architecture, conventions, or preferred way of working.
That is normal. A contribution is not an instruction. It is material offered to the project.
For Indiekit, for example, I submitted a skeleton pull request of roughly two thousand lines containing the foundations of a Microsub plugin. It was not something the lead developer could review immediately. It required time and several email exchanges. But the contribution was handled professionally.
That first pull request opened the way for further work, with the plugin I already use in production gradually being reviewed and reconstructed under the oversight of the person responsible for the project.
I have seen similar responses in projects such as Dolibarr, Odysseus, and ComfyUI. A suspected bug was investigated. Its existence was corroborated. A fix was discussed or implemented. Everyone using the project could then benefit.
That is one of the core ideas behind open source.
This is not an argument that AI is inherently good or bad. It is an argument that collaboration still depends on people who actually want to collaborate.
A project can publish its code under an open-source licence without being socially open to outside participation. That is entirely legitimate, but it should be understood honestly. Otherwise, openness risks becoming more of a posture than a practice.
The recent conflict also showed me how easily both sides can misread each other.
The maintainer indicated that they could not follow or process what I had written because it was too much. I interpreted this as a request for greater clarity and replied with another comment summarizing my previous points, together with screenshots from my implementation.
I believed I was reducing the burden.
In reality, the person was angry. They had perceived my earlier issues as orders and felt overwhelmed by my participation as a whole. My attempt to clarify the situation therefore became another contribution to the very problem they were describing.
I later tried to explain myself privately and apologized. I was also transparent that some of the issues and comments had been written partly, or sometimes almost entirely, with Claude’s assistance.
Again, this was not because I had randomly asked a model to invent criticisms of somebody else’s project. The tool was helping me work on the implementation. It already held the context of the bugs and limitations I had encountered, so using that context to draft an issue was the most direct workflow.
But the origin of the text does not erase its effect on the person receiving it.
Everyone is overwhelmed. Maintainers especially are often expected to write the software, review code, answer questions, manage releases, handle support, moderate discussions, and absorb the emotional reactions of users—all without compensation.
Adding more explanations, even explanations intended to correct a misunderstanding, can simply produce more pressure.
My response was therefore to withdraw. I removed my contributions and comments where I could, apologized for the parts for which I could take responsibility, and moved on.
That was not a protest against my work being rejected. Nobody is required to accept an issue, a patch, an idea, or a contribution. In a world where AI makes bootstrapping increasingly accessible, people can fork a project and take it in another direction. That freedom is essential, and it should not change.
The issue is not rejection.
The issue is the growing potential for misunderstanding, misperception, and misjudgment between people working at radically different speeds, with radically different expectations, using tools that can generate more material than any small project is equipped to absorb.
Over the coming years, situations like this will become common.
Contributors will have to learn that the ability to identify ten problems does not mean that a maintainer can process ten issues. The ability to generate a detailed analysis does not mean that detail is always helpful. A technically correct contribution can still arrive in a socially destructive form.
Maintainers, in turn, may need clearer ways to communicate what kind of participation they want, how much they can realistically review, and whether outside contributions are genuinely welcome.
We are entering largely uncharted territory. The tools are evolving faster than the social practices around them.
We will need to rediscover some old rules of collaboration and invent new ones: smaller contributions, clearer boundaries, explicit expectations, consent before large interventions, and a better awareness that attention—not code—is often the scarcest resource in an open-source project.
AI can help us produce more.
It cannot make us ready to receive more.
Whoever reads this, I came and go in Peace, I will keep doing my part the way I see fit, but I have definitely learned a lesson here and for that, I’m thankful.
There is a Ideas markdown file in the RSC GitHub repo but I want to share on my blog some of the things currently in development :
Better user management Users should be able to cancel and remove their accounts and cascade removal of their posts and replies.
better moderation and governance for feeds
creating an open publishing system is easy, moderating it is a pain in the A, so before this goes into a direction I don’t want I want to be able to have the tools to moderate feeds the system ingest.
I want to be able to differentiate an RSS feed from a compatible textcasting instance and RSS feeds added by users.
Currently, there is no difference between a user a a “remote user” representing an RSS feed subscribed by a user, not all feeds are textcasting feeds so we need a way for admins to decide which other instance they federate to, think subscribe bidirectionally and users added RSS feeds.
If/when an item comes from a remote feed I want to be able to moderate it, hide it, remove it, block the source if needed.
Inevitably someone will use one the demo sites to publish unwanted content or subscribe to a dubious feed just to see How it goes…
I want this to be configurable, each instance will have different requirements, RSC need to come up with tools to help operator handle an instance.
Better enclosure support Right now the system doesn’t support enclosure (podcasts) obviously the underlying tech support it, it’s RSS after all but the web front-end doesn’t know what to do with it, I want a shiny play button where needed and the ability to properly display media elements.
Better integration with YouTube, Funkwhale, SoundCloud, Spotify A link from there should display an embedded player and fallback to link if no JS
There is probably a tons of things I’m not including here, my brain is fried today.
Stumbled upon a few (local) #AI tools that made me really curious
@wjmaggos@liberal.city it doesn’t have that… At most if a lot of different instances existed, and were interlinked you would have distributed reach, can that be called social media boost? I don’t know… So yes currently #RSC is a social network with integrated RSS feeds, literally made for small communities with specific topics… Albeit it could also be used in different ways
Hmmm I wasn’t expecting THAT :)
Good work! Both the explainer and the implementation! I’m using indiekit which basically comes with IndieWeb batteries included! https://rmendes.net and I’m working to get it implemented on RSC https://rsc.rmdes.be
Show HN: RSC, a feeds-native social timeline you can self-host (rsc.rmdes.be)
edit : name changed
So this is a social network built on top of RSS feeds in very short, its also federated, bob.rmdes.be and alice.rmdes.be users can interact with RSC and the whole thing gets properly threaded in every instances
right now IndieAuth is not yet implemented, but when it is, people will be able to login to textcaster using their own h-card from their own site, this is basically a “social network on top of RSS feeds” in the future we could imagine rsc.rmdes.be as a fediverse identity itself (using Fedify probably) but its unclear to me how deep the integration should be going
Well the cat is out of the bag : if you like #RSS and the idea of a social layer on top of the existing web without lockin, ads and algorithms try it : https://textcaster.app #Fediverse #ATproto #ActivityPub
Well the cat is out of the bag : if you like #RSS and the idea of a social layer on top of the existing web without lockin, ads and algorithms try it : https://rsc.rmdes.be #Fediverse #ATproto #ActivityPub
The technical aspect of Odyssey IMAX filming is in itself astounding work.
I had no idea it was this complex and old-school to produce an IMAX movie.
Makes me want to watch it again… In a IMAX screen this time 😅
Working on something really cool, but its too soon to show, all I can say is its about RSS Reader, Micropub and Webmentions
Interesting…
Changed on my side !
à lire…malheureusement…
I can now use Phanpy properly using my AP/Fedify implementation for Indiekit !
This is a test
I recently got around this but using another approach, bookmarking this so I can compare…
Nice work !
Interesting read I want to come back later
Gotta check this later… Cos the only reason I bought this Geekom IT15 was to run Ableton.
Now if I can do this on my framework 16 I’d jump on the occasion
Testing Phandroid via Obtainium/F-Droid
This post is published through my Micropub endpoint, which creates a new entry in MongoDB. Eleventy then retrieves that entry during the build process and generates a static version of the post.
Any reactions or replies should trigger a Webmention, which is then received and processed by my Indiekit site.
Interesting…
Il y a quelque chose d’absurde dans notre manière de répondre à l’urgence climatique.
À chaque nouvelle canicule, on nous parle de volets, d’isolation, de climatisation, de fontaines, de piscines publiques temporairement accessibles et de quelques arbres plantés au milieu du béton. Toutes ces mesures peuvent être utiles. Certaines sont même indispensables. Mais elles restent des rustines posées sur une machine que personne ne veut arrêter.
Le débat ne porte plus vraiment sur la manière de stopper le réchauffement climatique. Il porte sur la manière de continuer à vivre à l’intérieur.
On ne demande pas comment réduire radicalement la production de gaz à effet de serre, transformer nos modes de production, organiser la sobriété énergétique ou mettre fin à certaines activités manifestement incompatibles avec la stabilité du climat. On demande comment adapter les maisons, refroidir les bureaux et protéger les villes sans modifier les fondations économiques qui produisent le problème.
Autrement dit, nous ne sommes plus dans une politique de prévention. Nous entrons dans une politique de protection sélective.
Tout le monde ne pourra pas s’adapter de la même manière.
Les plus riches vivront dans des logements isolés et climatisés, entourés de végétation, équipés de panneaux solaires, de batteries et de systèmes automatisés capables de maintenir une température idéale. Ils pourront partir lorsque certaines régions deviendront trop chaudes, acheter l’accès à l’eau, à l’ombre, à la sécurité et à un air plus respirable.
Les autres subiront.
Ils vivront dans des appartements mal isolés, dans des quartiers minéralisés, près des routes, des industries et des infrastructures qui concentrent la chaleur. Ils travailleront dehors, dans les cuisines, les entrepôts, les maisons de repos, les transports ou sur les chantiers. Ils seront les premiers exposés aux coupures d’eau, à l’augmentation des prix alimentaires, aux maladies, aux déplacements forcés et à la destruction progressive des services publics.
La formule politique du futur semble déjà écrite :
Le changement climatique devient ainsi une nouvelle machine à fabriquer du privilège. La possibilité de s’en protéger devient un produit. La survie elle-même devient un marché.
Les plus fortunés fantasment déjà sur des bunkers, des propriétés isolées et des territoires autonomes. Ils imaginent des sous-sols dont ils pourraient contrôler la température, l’accès, l’énergie et la sécurité. Comme si l’on pouvait détruire les conditions collectives de la vie tout en achetant une petite capsule privée d’habitabilité.
Ce n’est pas une réponse au changement climatique. C’est l’abandon assumé de la société.
Le problème est encore plus profond, car le climat n’est pas le seul système soumis à l’inertie.
Le système climatique possède sa propre inertie. Une partie des conséquences de nos émissions actuelles continuera de se manifester pendant des décennies. Même une transformation immédiate ne ferait pas disparaître instantanément les dégâts déjà accumulés.
Mais nos systèmes économiques et politiques sont eux aussi gouvernés par l’inertie.
Les infrastructures ont été construites autour du pétrole, du gaz, de la voiture individuelle, du transport mondial de marchandises et de la consommation permanente. Les entreprises doivent protéger leurs investissements. Les États redoutent les réactions électorales. Les gouvernements repoussent les décisions difficiles. Les citoyens dépendent matériellement d’un modèle qu’ils peuvent intellectuellement désapprouver, mais dont il leur est presque impossible de sortir individuellement.
Personne ne tient nécessairement le volant. Pourtant, la machine continue d’avancer.
Cette inertie permet à chacun de reporter la responsabilité sur quelqu’un d’autre. Les gouvernements attendent les entreprises. Les entreprises attendent les consommateurs. Les consommateurs attendent des alternatives abordables. Les pays riches accusent les économies émergentes. Les économies émergentes rappellent, à juste titre, que les pays riches se sont développés en brûlant massivement des énergies fossiles.
Pendant que tout le monde explique pourquoi il ne peut pas agir le premier, la concentration de gaz à effet de serre continue d’augmenter.
À cette paralysie s’ajoute désormais la promesse de l’intelligence artificielle.
Les mêmes entreprises qui construisent des centres de données gigantesques, augmentent leurs besoins en énergie, en eau, en métaux et en infrastructures nous expliquent que l’intelligence artificielle trouvera les solutions au changement climatique.
Elle optimisera les réseaux électriques. Elle découvrira de nouveaux matériaux. Elle améliorera les prévisions. Elle rendra les bâtiments plus efficaces. Elle inventera peut-être une technologie miraculeuse capable de capter le carbone à grande échelle.
Certaines de ces innovations seront probablement utiles. Mais le problème apparaît lorsque l’innovation future devient une excuse pour ne pas réduire les dégâts présents.
Le progrès technologique n’est plus présenté comme un outil. Il devient un acte de foi.
Nous plaçons dans la balance, d’un côté, la viabilité connue de notre planète et, de l’autre, la promesse d’une technologie future dont nous ignorons encore les capacités réelles, les coûts et les effets secondaires. Nous parions que les machines de demain répareront ce que les machines d’aujourd’hui continuent de détruire.
C’est une forme de pensée magique, mais avec des centres de données.
Nous vivons à une époque où nous devrions réduire radicalement notre empreinte matérielle, mais où chaque nouvelle industrie prétend nécessiter davantage d’électricité, davantage d’eau, davantage de calcul et davantage de ressources. Et chaque augmentation est justifiée au nom d’un futur où la technologie nous permettra enfin de consommer sans conséquences.
Nous sommes peut-être déjà au-delà de Don’t Look Up.
Dans le film, la catastrophe est niée ou transformée en spectacle. Dans notre réalité, elle est reconnue, documentée, mesurée et commentée. Nous savons qu’elle arrive. Nous savons même qu’elle a déjà commencé. Mais cette connaissance n’entraîne pas nécessairement l’action.
Elle produit des applications météo, des cartes de chaleur, des recommandations sanitaires et des publicités pour des climatiseurs.
La catastrophe est intégrée au marché.
La véritable question climatique n’est donc plus seulement de savoir combien de degrés supplémentaires nous allons atteindre. Elle est de savoir quelle société nous construisons pour y répondre.
Une société fondée sur la solidarité, la transformation collective et le partage des ressources ?
Ou une société de triage, dans laquelle ceux qui possèdent suffisamment d’argent achètent leur protection tandis que les autres sont abandonnés à leur capacité individuelle d’adaptation ?
La question du climat n’est pas limité à la destruction des écosystèmes. Elle révèle la nature de nos choix politiques. Elle montre quelles vies nous sommes prêts à protéger, quelles activités nous refusons d’interrompre et quels sacrifices nous sommes disposés à imposer — généralement aux autres.
Il ne s’agit pas uniquement de sauver « l’espèce humaine », comme si l’humanité formait un bloc homogène. Il s’agit de préserver les conditions d’existence d’innombrables espèces, mais aussi de décider quels humains seront autorisés à vivre dignement dans un monde plus chaud.
La catastrophe climatique n’est pas seulement ce qui nous arrive.
Elle est aussi la société que nous choisissons de construire en réaction à ce qui nous arrive.