Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. What would cross-posting between instances look like in ActivityPub?

What would cross-posting between instances look like in ActivityPub?

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
threadiversecrosspostactivitypub
15 Indlæg 10 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • ? Offline
    ? Offline
    Gæst
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #5

    @julian @rimu @andrew_s @melroy @BentiGorlich @nutomic @angusmcleod

    I am posting to this from Mastodon, which interfaces with communities on lemmy/pie very awkwardly (but not zero percent).
    A good cross posting solution would be one where a user can simply tag the extra communities, like a reply, as then it would be relatively cross platform friendly, and the communities on the other side/server would look for in their database posts with the community tagged / mentioned group 'superuser', say @ examplecommunity @ server.com when they load the community page, regardless if on the actual creation event they only 'officially' store it under one community.
    IDK yet (I'll prolly look it up someday) how all these different platforms are organizing their database, but I'm imagining a table like poster | category | tags + msg + mentions | getting pulled when you go to a category; then you could turn off looking at cross-posts that are only in the category because of a tag/mention.

    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • ? Gæst

      @julian @rimu @andrew_s @melroy @BentiGorlich @nutomic @angusmcleod

      I am posting to this from Mastodon, which interfaces with communities on lemmy/pie very awkwardly (but not zero percent).
      A good cross posting solution would be one where a user can simply tag the extra communities, like a reply, as then it would be relatively cross platform friendly, and the communities on the other side/server would look for in their database posts with the community tagged / mentioned group 'superuser', say @ examplecommunity @ server.com when they load the community page, regardless if on the actual creation event they only 'officially' store it under one community.
      IDK yet (I'll prolly look it up someday) how all these different platforms are organizing their database, but I'm imagining a table like poster | category | tags + msg + mentions | getting pulled when you go to a category; then you could turn off looking at cross-posts that are only in the category because of a tag/mention.

      julian@community.nodebb.orgJ This user is from outside of this forum
      julian@community.nodebb.orgJ This user is from outside of this forum
      julian@community.nodebb.org
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #6

      @kirkmoodey@universeodon.com yes, Mastodon compatibility is lacklustre but that’s partly because the architecture of Mastodon doesn’t lend itself well to categorical organization. That’s not a criticism, merely a difference that we have to consider.

      Currently, when a user addresses multiple communities, then the existing software (NodeBB included) uses the first one. How the rest of the addressed communities are handled is what’s of interest here.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • ? Offline
        ? Offline
        Gæst
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #7

        @julian @rimu @andrew_s @melroy @BentiGorlich @nutomic @angusmcleod say I make a video and post it somewhere I can set comments subject to approval. A forum or link aggregator whose moderation I trust posts a link to my video. I think I would like to approve a whole discussion that I am confident is moderated appropriately, but not all discussions, and also treat my reactions to individual comments as approvals for display at the publication site.

        So I think I would want granularity, deciding whether my content is linked or cross posted, and whether I want to treat the remote discussion as a cross post to my comments section. But I would definitely want it to be the same object. In as far as I would have any duplication the cross post would be best thought of as nested under the post object.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • gunchleoc@mastodon.scotG This user is from outside of this forum
          gunchleoc@mastodon.scotG This user is from outside of this forum
          gunchleoc@mastodon.scot
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #8

          @julian @kirkmoodey Mastodon is currently working on a spec for their groups implementation. Maybe get everybody together to hash out a common spec, including those who already have a group implementation like Friendica/Hubzilla, Misskey/IceShrimp/Sharkey, Pleroma/Akkoma?

          jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • rimu@piefed.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
            rimu@piefed.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
            rimu@piefed.social
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #9

            IMO The simplest way would be to garnish a bit of extra data onto the normal FEP 1b12 process.

            Create a new post (Create -> Page to the instance that hosts the community, which in turn does Announce -> Create -> Page to followers) and add an extra field to the Page which is the URL of the original post. That will establish the association.

            To reject the cross-post, return HTTP 400 (403?) to the POST to the inbox on the initial Create -> Page ? Or send a Reject activity, either way is fine but the 400 seems easiest. Lemmy returns 400 for a lot of things, PieFed just blindly accepts everything.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • gunchleoc@mastodon.scotG gunchleoc@mastodon.scot

              @julian @kirkmoodey Mastodon is currently working on a spec for their groups implementation. Maybe get everybody together to hash out a common spec, including those who already have a group implementation like Friendica/Hubzilla, Misskey/IceShrimp/Sharkey, Pleroma/Akkoma?

              jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ This user is from outside of this forum
              jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ This user is from outside of this forum
              jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocks
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #10
              gunchleoc:

              Mastodon is currently working on a spec for their groups implementation.

              Any links to this and/or discussion of how it relates to other FEPs?

              ? 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • ? Offline
                ? Offline
                Gæst
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #11

                Duplicating the object would mean the discussion is split between objects. The ideal implementation would be the same object present in multiple categories/communities. Is there desire for this in the threadiverse?

                If the link goes to a controversial news article and it’s get posted into pro- and against- community/group the comments will spiral out of control and it won’t be a pleasant place.

                Maybe it could be implemented as a toggle per group/instance within one fedi software. It shouldn’t be in Activity Pub protocol.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocks
                  gunchleoc:

                  Mastodon is currently working on a spec for their groups implementation.

                  Any links to this and/or discussion of how it relates to other FEPs?

                  ? Offline
                  ? Offline
                  Gæst
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #12

                  https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/19059

                  jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • ? Gæst

                    https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/19059

                    jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocks
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #13

                    THanks ... turns out I knew about that: the implementation for the NLNet grant, but never released. My impression is that it's been on hold since then, and there's so much other discussions of group-releated FEPs that I certainly hope they'll incorporate newer thinking if and when it moves forward.

                    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocks

                      THanks ... turns out I knew about that: the implementation for the NLNet grant, but never released. My impression is that it's been on hold since then, and there's so much other discussions of group-releated FEPs that I certainly hope they'll incorporate newer thinking if and when it moves forward.

                      julian@community.nodebb.orgJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      julian@community.nodebb.orgJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      julian@community.nodebb.org
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #14

                      I haven’t looked into the differences between their implementation and how groups are implemented using 1b12, but what I have discovered is that the 1b12 community is much larger than I gave it credit for.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • projectmoon@forum.agnos.isP This user is from outside of this forum
                        projectmoon@forum.agnos.isP This user is from outside of this forum
                        projectmoon@forum.agnos.is
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #15

                        How would this work on the NodeBB side? Multiple categories associated with one topic?

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        Svar
                        • Svar som emne
                        Login for at svare
                        • Ældste til nyeste
                        • Nyeste til ældste
                        • Most Votes


                        • Log ind

                        • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                        • Login or register to search.
                        Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                        Graciously hosted by data.coop
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Hjem
                        • Seneste
                        • Etiketter
                        • Populære
                        • Verden
                        • Bruger
                        • Grupper