As far as I understand, most (all?) fediverse #ActivityPub software does not use the Client-to-server protocol from the specs (https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#client-to-server-interactions) but rather use custom APIs instead.
-
@smallcircles @julian It's ok for people to have conversations they want in the places they already are.
@evan @smallcircles @julian This. And it is our task as developers to make all those places safe by default. When we fail to protect our users, we are to blame.
-
@smallcircles @julian It's ok for people to have conversations they want in the places they already are.
-
@evan @smallcircles @julian This. And it is our task as developers to make all those places safe by default. When we fail to protect our users, we are to blame.
Write software for online spaces where people can be safe!Though I have a slight issue with 'users', and feel that with that terminology you already lose the first round, esp. in social networking.
https://social.coop/@smallcircles/114398657997240357
"The farmer protects the hens against the fox by building a fence around them". A single word puts so much distance between people.
-
Write software for online spaces where people can be safe!
Though I have a slight issue with 'users', and feel that with that terminology you already lose the first round, esp. in social networking.
https://social.coop/@smallcircles/114398657997240357
"The farmer protects the hens against the fox by building a fence around them". A single word puts so much distance between people.
@smallcircles @evan @julian Feel free to find a better term to define the people that use the technology we developers give them. Doesn't change the fact the we developers are responsible for our code, not those that use it.
-
@smallcircles @evan @julian Feel free to find a better term to define the people that use the technology we developers give them. Doesn't change the fact the we developers are responsible for our code, not those that use it.
Yes, we must be responsible, create safe spaces, etc. Yet how we talk with or about other people matters a lot. There's endless debate around developer privilege, sometimes fair, sometimes not. But there is a lot of 'we know what is best for the user' explicit/implicit outcome.
If we are so diverse, why not walk that adventure together, discuss needs beyond the tech circle?
An analogy is development aid, where the West knows best what help to give.. they think.
-
Yes, we must be responsible, create safe spaces, etc. Yet how we talk with or about other people matters a lot. There's endless debate around developer privilege, sometimes fair, sometimes not. But there is a lot of 'we know what is best for the user' explicit/implicit outcome.
If we are so diverse, why not walk that adventure together, discuss needs beyond the tech circle?
An analogy is development aid, where the West knows best what help to give.. they think.
@smallcircles @evan @julian I honestly don't care that much about philosophical abstractions and discussions. "My code must protect the rights and privacy of the people that use my code. Always. Provable." is my mantra
-
Yes, we must be responsible, create safe spaces, etc. Yet how we talk with or about other people matters a lot. There's endless debate around developer privilege, sometimes fair, sometimes not. But there is a lot of 'we know what is best for the user' explicit/implicit outcome.
If we are so diverse, why not walk that adventure together, discuss needs beyond the tech circle?
An analogy is development aid, where the West knows best what help to give.. they think.
I am only observing that there is a missing focus on the social side, the soft and fluffy parts that many devs hate. And in return what we build is kind of a technosphere, missing the social layers to really click with people. Unless with the help of some 'digital transformation' which is the opposite of what we should be doing.. bring tech to be supportive of people, anticipate their true needs.
Anyway, I'm side-stepping. You know this well, and do wonders wrt help!
-
More interesting angle to your question, maybe why asked, is to "reimagine forums" in our new age of social networking.
Yesterday I had a discussion about https://blocks.githubnext.com "Reimagine repositories". Great ideation starting point. What is a repository actually? Container of a solution? Or .. what?
Maybe a forum is single-person software, attached to the social graph of the social web? Tapping into activity streams and knowledge bases. To 'slice' our personalized community views?
-
@smallcircles @evan @julian I honestly don't care that much about philosophical abstractions and discussions. "My code must protect the rights and privacy of the people that use my code. Always. Provable." is my mantra
I often mention this 'peopleverse' as something to envision, a hypothetical place where our offline and online worlds seamlessly connect and support our daily lives.
It is a philosophical abstraction, but it is a useful one. What happens when I open my eyes in the morning and events starts flowing in on the single timeline of the life that I lead?
(One thing is that I can go online and engage in global-square twitter 2.0 where people build protection after the fact.)
-
I often mention this 'peopleverse' as something to envision, a hypothetical place where our offline and online worlds seamlessly connect and support our daily lives.
It is a philosophical abstraction, but it is a useful one. What happens when I open my eyes in the morning and events starts flowing in on the single timeline of the life that I lead?
(One thing is that I can go online and engage in global-square twitter 2.0 where people build protection after the fact.)
@smallcircles @evan @julian I call it the "Internet of people" as opposed to the "internet of machines, companies" we have right now
-
I often mention this 'peopleverse' as something to envision, a hypothetical place where our offline and online worlds seamlessly connect and support our daily lives.
It is a philosophical abstraction, but it is a useful one. What happens when I open my eyes in the morning and events starts flowing in on the single timeline of the life that I lead?
(One thing is that I can go online and engage in global-square twitter 2.0 where people build protection after the fact.)
Anyway, at this point I may make a cross-reference to old notes I made wrt major challenges we face, and still do today.
https://discuss.coding.social/t/major-challenges-for-the-fediverse/67
I think we can only hope to address these challenges if we do much more than just care for our code and protect our users. I understand where you come from and underline your ethics and values. We are kindred spirits in the commons But I am arguing that we may benefit from a slight perspective shift to help reimagine social.
-
@smallcircles @evan @julian I call it the "Internet of people" as opposed to the "internet of machines, companies" we have right now
Yes, that is already a huge improvement. And such phrases help align minds and thinking to explore what that should mean in practice.
-
@[email protected] @naturzukunft @smallcircles @skyfaller @hugh @bob There are other servers that implement C2S support (ActivityPods, Vocata, onepage.pub, ...). Lack of servers implementing C2S is not the problem. See the many other issues described in this thread for examples of why one can't built an *interoperable* AP C2S client with features a typical user would expect.
@steve @naturzukunft @skyfaller @hugh @bob
@evanGood thread!
I wanna collect C2S compliant projects here: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/delightful-fediverse-apps/issues/130I'm planning updates to the 4 fedi-related https://delightful.club lists and reorganising them. Have a humongous maintenance backlog too.
In this reorg I want to highlight the more interesting, unexplored and innovative directions that our fediverse may be evolving to.
The other day I had discussion on 2 top categories for fedi apps list: https://thoresson.social/@anders/114433900582811705
-
@[email protected] it's because clients can't make any assumptions about ActivityPub data using the C2S model. They have to perform full client side parsing and linking, then figure out some way to display this graph structure of data they've been given. The fact of the matter is that ActivityPubs design is overly broad, and no client could account for this. So, instances implement an API offering a simple, watered down format, plus the benefit of having stability even if the software moves to another federation protocol down the line.
There's also the matter that almost all ActivityPub implementations do not store posts in their database as JSON-LD, instead they unmarshal the data from it and store it in a concise format. Reconstructing it for the purposes of C2S would be inefficient and clunky. -
More interesting angle to your question, maybe why asked, is to "reimagine forums" in our new age of social networking.
Yesterday I had a discussion about https://blocks.githubnext.com "Reimagine repositories". Great ideation starting point. What is a repository actually? Container of a solution? Or .. what?
Maybe a forum is single-person software, attached to the social graph of the social web? Tapping into activity streams and knowledge bases. To 'slice' our personalized community views?
wrote last edited by [email protected]@[email protected] personally, I feel that asking people to post or continue a discussion on another platform is a roadblock that shouldn't need to exist.
You can't do it on Discourse, but in NodeBB you can "categorize" a topic, even if it came from the microblog-fedi. Similarly to how you can import a reply tree into another Mastodon instance. That's the difference, that the software should support something like this, although I get that that's not always important to every piece of software.
Things get a little more confusing if a topic is already categorized, like a Lemmy/Piefed post in a community, so I expect some of that to change in the coming months.
End of the day it would look something like "cross-posting" as currently exists on the threadiverse.
-
@julian I like the general direction, and it is very promising. Liking too the collab between NodeBB, Discourse and Lemmy in this regard. Very important that for interop sake. Thank you for all your efforts on the forum taskforce!
-
@skyfaller Well one person’s “under-defined” is another person’s “flexible and simple”. If people get their heads out of micro-blogging it becomes clearer why a more rigid definition becomes limiting, IMO.
@hugh @skyfaller part of the problem with how “underdefined” it is, is that we’re not talking about the big picture being there but mostly in need of filling in the gaps. we’re talking about “there is no agreed-upon authorization framework” levels of “underdefined”.
the other part is that it presupposes a wildly different topology than what fedi adheres to. the most natural interpretation of “client” is not something like Tusky. the AP client would be Mastodon itself as a client of an AP server
-
@hugh @skyfaller part of the problem with how “underdefined” it is, is that we’re not talking about the big picture being there but mostly in need of filling in the gaps. we’re talking about “there is no agreed-upon authorization framework” levels of “underdefined”.
the other part is that it presupposes a wildly different topology than what fedi adheres to. the most natural interpretation of “client” is not something like Tusky. the AP client would be Mastodon itself as a client of an AP server
@hugh @skyfaller here, the AP server handles storage and delivery. i could then use mastodon/pixelfed/etc as clients to GET/POST against my outbox/inbox as needed, basically treating the AP server as a database of sorts, as well as a mail server of sorts.
most implementations of fedi are not like this and do not want to do this. they want to be monoliths. monoliths are “easy”. the will to abstract away social activity storage and delivery is largely not there.
-
@hugh @skyfaller part of the problem with how “underdefined” it is, is that we’re not talking about the big picture being there but mostly in need of filling in the gaps. we’re talking about “there is no agreed-upon authorization framework” levels of “underdefined”.
the other part is that it presupposes a wildly different topology than what fedi adheres to. the most natural interpretation of “client” is not something like Tusky. the AP client would be Mastodon itself as a client of an AP server
Yes that's what has become clearer to me as more people outline what they think the gap is (surprise: they don't all agree on that). There's a chasm between what the people writing the spec were imagining, and what most projects that use AP are trying to do. While the lack of detail on authorisation is a pretty major problem, it now seems to me that to a fair extent the issue is more a mismatch between the conceptual model of the ActivityPub spec (thick clients doing the work, with servers passing messages between them) and what most fediverse projects are trying to do (tightly-coupled server-client apps that talk to each other).
-
@julian @strypey one wonders if it would perhaps be more expedient to just do the identity bits and have the data live on B rather than ferrying it back to A.
probably what’s needed is a framework for tracking which resources are equivalent to each other. say i crosspost from my website to a forum. the post exists as two resources, one on each site, even though they are the “same” post. maybe as:alsoKnownAs can help here?
