Skip to content

Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.

Uncategorized
67 18 0

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    trwnh@mastodon.social there were! Yes, I'll get them up over the weekend hopefully. The main news was updating everybody on context collection adoption (which I've posted about on ActivityPub.Space), plus TallTed brought up how this was handled in the nntp space
  • 0 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Twissell hmm, chat notifications have always been delayed by a minute or so. Maybe less. It is done so that subsequent messages sent within the same rough time frame can be batched together. This is less of an issue with notifications on site, but can be an issue when you are emailed for every single chat message.
  • Why does #activitypub not have quote posts

    Uncategorized activitypub
    3
    0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    kariboka@social.harpia.red fox@social.hostnetwork.xyz but fwiw Mastodon now has quote posts.
  • 0 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    j12t@j12t.social luca@sironi.tk a number of publishers just removed the comment section wholesale, which is an even worse end result. Bringing them back under the umbrella of the open social web would be great.
  • Final thoughts re: FediCon 2025

    ActivityPub fedicon fedicon2025 activitypub
    17
    0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    90 Aufrufe
    jdp23@neuromatch.socialJ
    @julian Also, speaking of fixable deficiencies, my edits here don't seem to propagate to SocialHub . Without knowing the code I'm confident it's fixable because my edits did propagate to the NodeBB thread at https://community.nodebb.org/topic/18932/final-thoughts-re-fedicon-2025/14 , great to see!
  • Fun with Federation: Lemmy edition

    ActivityPub nodebb lemmy activitypub
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    152 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    nutomic@lemmy.ml let me know if I got any of the details wrong. Much thanks to your team for the assist in debugging!
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    229 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
    127 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Uups, next try https://nrw.social/deck/@FrankM/113606591981853331