mro@digitalcourage.social I think you're completely right. I've had the privilege of attending two in-person conferences related to ActivityPub—FOSDEM and Fedicon—and the difference between them and collaborating online is staggering. I'm not so sure about the assertion that "big shots" weren't on SocialHub as a cause of it being sidelined. While the big names (e.g. Evan from SWF, Renaud/Claire from Mastodon, Nutomic from Lemmy, to name a few) don't post there often, they do show up from time to time, which goes to show that something like a forum does have a place in online collaboration. Perhaps it is a question of whether there is enough derived value from participating in SocialHub. I will say this, though, that I have far too much going on with my life (work, family, hobbies, more work) to dedicate the appropriate mind-share to yet another social website. I happen to participate in SocialHub discussions purely because I can do so from my own ActivityPub-enabled software. Occasionally I visit the site directly when I am directly mentioned (and later emailed about it.)

gyptazy@mastodon.gyptazy.com it's the kind of relay Pleroma uses, that's why I asked.

abraham@indieweb.social and they say ActivityPub is too technical ...

dentangle@chaos.social the noindex tag has been added to all remote profiles.

pfefferle@mastodon.social oh interesting! > We’ve also made it easier to follow people from other sites. When you click “Follow” on someone else’s blog, you’ll now be taken to your own site to complete it. It keeps things simple and familiar, even when you start following someone from another site. How do you know the user pressing the button has a WordPress site?

nutomic@lemmy.ml let me know if I got any of the details wrong. Much thanks to your team for the assist in debugging!

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