Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

agnos.is Forums

  1. Home
  2. Fediverse
  3. What would cross-posting between instances look like in ActivityPub?

What would cross-posting between instances look like in ActivityPub?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Fediverse
threadiversecrosspostactivitypub
17 Posts 10 Posters 86 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • julian@community.nodebb.orgJ [email protected]

    [email protected] yes, Mastodon compatibility is lacklustre but that's partly because the architecture of Mastodon doesn't lend itself well to categorical organization. That's not a criticism, merely a difference that we have to consider.

    Currently, when a user addresses multiple communities, then the existing software (NodeBB included) uses the first one. How the rest of the addressed communities are handled is what's of interest here.

    gunchleoc@mastodon.scotG This user is from outside of this forum
    gunchleoc@mastodon.scotG This user is from outside of this forum
    [email protected]
    wrote on last edited by
    #8

    @julian @kirkmoodey Mastodon is currently working on a spec for their groups implementation. Maybe get everybody together to hash out a common spec, including those who already have a group implementation like Friendica/Hubzilla, Misskey/IceShrimp/Sharkey, Pleroma/Akkoma?

    jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • rimu@piefed.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
      rimu@piefed.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
      [email protected]
      wrote on last edited by
      #9

      IMO The simplest way would be to garnish a bit of extra data onto the normal FEP 1b12 process.

      Create a new post (Create -> Page to the instance that hosts the community, which in turn does Announce -> Create -> Page to followers) and add an extra field to the Page which is the URL of the original post. That will establish the association.

      To reject the cross-post, return HTTP 400 (403?) to the POST to the inbox on the initial Create -> Page ? Or send a Reject activity, either way is fine but the 400 seems easiest. Lemmy returns 400 for a lot of things so we have some prior art in that direction.

      julian@community.nodebb.orgJ 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • gunchleoc@mastodon.scotG [email protected]

        @julian @kirkmoodey Mastodon is currently working on a spec for their groups implementation. Maybe get everybody together to hash out a common spec, including those who already have a group implementation like Friendica/Hubzilla, Misskey/IceShrimp/Sharkey, Pleroma/Akkoma?

        jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ This user is from outside of this forum
        jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ This user is from outside of this forum
        [email protected]
        wrote on last edited by
        #10
        gunchleoc:

        Mastodon is currently working on a spec for their groups implementation.

        Any links to this and/or discussion of how it relates to other FEPs?

        erlend_sh@socialhub.activitypub.rocksE 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • julian@community.nodebb.orgJ [email protected]

          [email protected] yes, you're right about that. The silver lining here is that we're at a point where the major players' implementations are local-only, so we don't have to work around with a pre-existing implementation and ensure compatibility.

          The second point is that a "cross-post" could have multiple meanings, including manually creating a new post about a link already present in multiple communities. What I'm hoping to describe is a common way that items can be cross-posted natively between instances, while hopefully preserving their reply-trees.

          ludrol@szmer.infoL This user is from outside of this forum
          ludrol@szmer.infoL This user is from outside of this forum
          [email protected]
          wrote on last edited by
          #11

          Duplicating the object would mean the discussion is split between objects. The ideal implementation would be the same object present in multiple categories/communities. Is there desire for this in the threadiverse?

          If the link goes to a controversial news article and it's get posted into pro- and against- community/group the comments will spiral out of control and it won't be a pleasant place.

          Maybe it could be implemented as a toggle per group/instance within one fedi software. It shouldn't be in Activity Pub protocol.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ [email protected]
            gunchleoc:

            Mastodon is currently working on a spec for their groups implementation.

            Any links to this and/or discussion of how it relates to other FEPs?

            erlend_sh@socialhub.activitypub.rocksE This user is from outside of this forum
            erlend_sh@socialhub.activitypub.rocksE This user is from outside of this forum
            [email protected]
            wrote on last edited by
            #12

            https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/19059

            jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • erlend_sh@socialhub.activitypub.rocksE [email protected]

              https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/19059

              jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ This user is from outside of this forum
              jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ This user is from outside of this forum
              [email protected]
              wrote on last edited by
              #13

              THanks ... turns out I knew about that: the implementation for the NLNet grant, but never released. My impression is that it's been on hold since then, and there's so much other discussions of group-releated FEPs that I certainly hope they'll incorporate newer thinking if and when it moves forward.

              julian@community.nodebb.orgJ 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • jdp23@socialhub.activitypub.rocksJ [email protected]

                THanks ... turns out I knew about that: the implementation for the NLNet grant, but never released. My impression is that it's been on hold since then, and there's so much other discussions of group-releated FEPs that I certainly hope they'll incorporate newer thinking if and when it moves forward.

                julian@community.nodebb.orgJ This user is from outside of this forum
                julian@community.nodebb.orgJ This user is from outside of this forum
                [email protected]
                wrote on last edited by
                #14

                I haven't looked into the differences between their implementation and how groups are implemented using 1b12, but what I have discovered is that the 1b12 community is much larger than I gave it credit for.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • projectmoonP projectmoon moved this topic from ActivityPub
                • projectmoonP Offline
                  projectmoonP Offline
                  projectmoon
                  wrote last edited by
                  #15

                  How would this work on the NodeBB side? Multiple categories associated with one topic?

                  julian@community.nodebb.orgJ 1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  • projectmoonP projectmoon

                    How would this work on the NodeBB side? Multiple categories associated with one topic?

                    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    [email protected]
                    wrote last edited by
                    #16

                    [email protected] basically, yes. It would be a little too involved to upend the entire system to support multiple cids per topic — a lot of our existing code relies on cid being a single value.

                    This would be an add-on logic of sorts, where each topic has a canonical category, but can also be cross-posted to other communities/categories.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • rimu@piefed.socialR [email protected]

                      IMO The simplest way would be to garnish a bit of extra data onto the normal FEP 1b12 process.

                      Create a new post (Create -> Page to the instance that hosts the community, which in turn does Announce -> Create -> Page to followers) and add an extra field to the Page which is the URL of the original post. That will establish the association.

                      To reject the cross-post, return HTTP 400 (403?) to the POST to the inbox on the initial Create -> Page ? Or send a Reject activity, either way is fine but the 400 seems easiest. Lemmy returns 400 for a lot of things so we have some prior art in that direction.

                      julian@community.nodebb.orgJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      julian@community.nodebb.orgJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      [email protected]
                      wrote last edited by
                      #17

                      Hey [email protected] 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.

                      1. 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?
                      2. 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 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups