Skip to content

As someone who has developed several #ActivityPub software implementations ([Fedify], [Hollo], [BotKit], and [Hackers' Pub]), I believe one of the most frustrating features to implement in the #fediverse is #custom_emoji.

Uncategorized
43 9 0

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Here's an idea.

    Uncategorized activitypub
    7
    0 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    benpate@mastodon.social Emissary interested? Har Har Har
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    dfyx@social.helios42.de because followers and outbox collections can be faked.
  • OF alternative fediverse?

    Uncategorized fediverse
    12
    0 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    24 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.
  • Why is data congregation so hard on Mastodon?

    Fediverse fediverse
    9
    0 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Thanks! It's something that I personally feel is more performant and future proof for other important things like private discussions (which Mastodon also doesn't support natively yet — mention spamming doesn't count.)
  • Slrpnk.net outage

    Uncategorized fediverse
    96
    0 Stimmen
    96 Beiträge
    382 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    blazeknave@lemmy.world beep beep boop boop boop boop beep... EEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeee awwwwwww ka-dong ka-dong da kshhhhhhhhhhhhhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH eerie silence
  • 0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    52 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    melroy@kbin.melroy.org oh sorry to hear that hopefully Dan hasn't moved on from FediDB already.
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    153 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