Yes! You can create posts on Lemmy with the summary and a link to your site. The web is made of many platforms with links between then. Why not put your long-lived content on a platform you own? The web is a safe bet.

The internet is great for connecting machines. HTTP(s) could even be used to transfer messages. Blockchain is good for maintaining a historical record. The farther down the chain you go, the harder it becomes to rewrite history. You pay for this feature by requiring everyone to permanently keep the whole shared historical record. Some workarounds for the permanent storage of the whole history exist but that’s blockchain in a basic form. The permanent record is a nice feature for things like financial transactions.

Blockchain bros tried to convince us blockchain is great for sharing information in an effort to increase its relevance. You may connect it for that reason. In their defence, blockchain can be used for data transfer, it’s just not that great at it.

Blockchain could be used to assert trust, but most problems have equally good or better alternative solutions for that. Very often these use digital signatures and public-private keypairs.

You may want to look at YaCy for a decentralised search engine.

Decentralisation. I don’t want to fall in the same trap picking a huge platform which can only be ran by a large entity. Federation in Forgejo is taking quite long.

We made a PoC on top of Solid which does work so it is clearly possible, but the code quality is too low to trust the solution.

That twists it to “protecting nature raises your electricity bill” where it’s just that that the plant, when built, did not take into account water levels could drop this low. As if they assumed climate change wouldn’t be this influential or something.

Interesting read. I’ve glanced over sections and read others.

I’ve been involved in the use of some of these frameworks. They are good reference frameworks but they are most often overly heavy to get started and/or the implementation is most often not supporting what the marketing material suggests.

Good integration projects start from limited partners with limited datasets exchanging with each other knowing they want to exchange with more partners in the future. Limited can be two to seven and they can even be in the same organisation. Perhaps it works with more, I have not been involved in that. They contain only the necessary roles and know how they’ll expand. These frameworks are great to get the expansion options in place. However, to get something going we’ve seen that a cheap and structurally correct solution to data sharing gets the ball running more quickly and for longer, then an expensive and heavy project which needs all sorts of approvals (even if it would be superior).

Projects that start with the weight of all the roles filled in by different actors need substantial funding to get started and I don’t think they generally last after funding dried up. Projects faking their way through the extra roles and providing the most limited interpretation of some of these roles with the project having some (even vague) shared benefit seem to survive past the grant stage.

Get some basics right and get going is my advice. Identifiers, shared and extensible data models, and a clear way of sharing data.

I like these frameworks, they help set the stage, but my gosh do they see problems where there are none when a project is just getting started.