Skip to content

Blogtastisch: 2. Blogs und das Fediverse

notizBlog
17 8 182

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    jsit@social.coop Ghost? NodeBB? Just to name a couple
  • OF alternative fediverse?

    Uncategorized fediverse
    12
    0 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Tell me about it! There are some very cool people (i.e. thisismissem@hachyderm.io) working on content classification and tagging so that the burden of filtering out this kind of content isn't borne by server admins directly.
  • 0 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    59 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    renchap@oisaur.com edent@mastodon.social as it should, as the followers collection can be gamed and should not be trusted.
  • 0 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    37 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    For what it's worth your blog does show up fine in NodeBB as well. Perhaps you are missing the @context property and so Mastodon is refusing to parse it?
  • Bounce Helps You Switch Networks

    Fediverse fediverse
    2
    1
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Hey deadsuperhero@lemmy.world have you tried updating to the latest NodeBB? You can post to Lemmy communities from there too!
  • 0 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    64 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    I suppose you're right in a way. The context owner is not supposed to be set by someone other than the context owner. It's a fallback mechanism intended for better compatibility with Mastodon. When a group is addressed and it is one of the local NodeBB categories, it will assume control If it is another group that it knows about but isn't same origin to the author, then no category is assumed.
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    149 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Hey rimu@piefed.social thanks for responding (and sorry for the late reply!) I am not married to the Announce([Article|Note|Page]) approach, so I am definitely open to Create([Article|Note|Page]) with a back-reference. I think I went the former direction because there is a known fallback mechanism — the Announce is treated as a share/boost/repost as normal. However, sending the Create also is fine I think. However, do we need a backreference? In my limited research, it seems that Piefed, et al. picks the first Group actor and associates the post with that community. If I sent over a Create(Article) with two Group actors addressed, could Piefed associate the post with the first, and initiate a cross-post with the remaining Group actors? Secondly, is how to handle sync. 1b12 relies on communities having reciprocal followers in order for two-way synchronization to be established. On my end since I know it is cross-posted I will now send 1b12 activities to cross-posted communities, but can Piefed, et al. send 1b12 activities back as well, in the absence of followers? cc andrew_s@piefed.social nutomic@lemmy.ml melroy@kbin.melroy.org bentigorlich@gehirneimer.de
  • Test Post for @julian

    Uncategorized activitypub
    3
    0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    83 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Uups, next try https://nrw.social/deck/@FrankM/113606591981853331