Hi deutrino@mstdn.io, please link out to the original, not this AI summarized copy. https://community.nodebb.org/topic/18844/backfilling-conversations-two-major-approaches

lepertti@mastodon.gamedev.place yes! That's what I did with NodeBB. The main things you need for that are the content discovery pieces, otherwise you're broadcasting only.

rimu@piefed.social I love it! box464@mastodon.social

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

kariboka@social.harpia.red fox@social.hostnetwork.xyz but fwiw Mastodon now has quote posts.

julian@community.nodebb.org Yeah, being able to treat Mastodon and Lemmy/mbin/piefed like a bulletin board continues to feel like magic.

לאצי the usernames work fine locally (that is, on the site itself). It's when interoperating with other sites not running NodeBB where there are issues, it seems

Is there or should there be a distinction between the original and the mirrors? We have a conversation owner at the thread level (which is either the forum, subforum, forum category, or person who created the top level post, depending on the software). They determine the official moderated version of the thread since they can remove comments (although mirrors don't have to honor that). If we show that conversation on another server, technically that is a mirror of that thread, especially if you are throwing it in a category or displaying it under a hashtag. Should we be indicating that a particular thread was started on a particular forum (or category within a forum)? Should we be honoring the moderated version of the conversation from the original thread? The concept of mirroring threads across platforms is great for participation and censorship resistance, but it does make it unclear about who owns the thread from a moderation perspective.

trwnh@mastodon.social before, I was not sending Accept at all, now I am sending application/jrd+json. FWIW testing with cURL showed the same Bad Request with application/json.

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

@obenland@mastodon.social wonderful, good work!

@pfefferle@mastodon.social just wanted to poke you about this issue again. The latest updates to NodeBB now do a webfinger backcheck to ensure that the actor has a valid webfinger entry for their purported handle. If it does not, then the user is not properly created. Mastodon also does this. This check is probably for security as well as for preventing handle collisions. The multilingual plugin in conjunction with the ActivityPub plugin creates users that share the same handle, and that causes issues with federated content. For example, this article by @jonvt@vivaldi.com will load up just fine in Mastodon, but this japanese article by @akira@vivaldi.com will not, because that second article's attributedTo is https://vivaldi.com/ja/?author=176, which fails that check (the author's ID is actually https://vivaldi.com?author=176 as per the handle backcheck) cc @AltCode

@AltCode One significant potential issues with listing all followed categories in the same kind of layout as /categories is the below-the-fold effect, or the page-2 effect as one might have called it in earlier times. Whatever categories end up falling below a certain scroll distance will just never been seen by most users. If you follow a lot of categories, the ones that end up closer to the bottom of the list than the top will just end up ignored. It doesn't encourage participation, and it also doesn't discourage following a lot of categories that you don't actually care about. And follow relationships are very important under ActivityPub, since they dictate content flow. Bringing in a lot of remote content that no one on the local forum is actually reading or engaging with is very wasteful. An easily accessible compact list might be better, with different sorting options so that users can choose to have categories with new content float to the top. Usually with forum categories, you want the ordering to be static, but that expectation won't necessarily be there for just a list.

I asked in that issue whether Lemmy finds community via to/cc (it does). Does PieFed do the same? Yes - PieFed does the same. It looks in 'audience', then 'cc', then 'to'. It has to, to support all the platforms that haven't adopted 'audience. It's a convenient field, but PieFed won't be affected if Lemmy goes through with removing it. Would this also open up the possibility of a topic/context being part of multiple audiences/communities? Not at present. If you do something like cc: [community1, community2] it will only go to community1 (on both Lemmy and PieFed). There's so many activities that are effectively duplicates, both in normal operation and when platforms are bugged (both Lemmy and Mastodon have gone through phases of sending the same activity multiple times), that you need a way to make sure you're only processing one. On PieFed, this is done by having a UNIQUE constraint of the 'ap_id' column of the Post table (the ap_id of your post is https://community.nodebb.org/post/103806), so it means you can't have the same post in more than one community.

@hamishcampbell @ricmac @evanprodromou @julian Thanks for your kind words. I won't interrupt your discussion with Julian anymore. I hope you reach some accord!

@johnonolan@mastodon.xyz no worries, and thanks! Will do.

I would honestly have been worried if the main people behind the protocol were busy trying to gatekeeep it.

That sounds good

@shoppingtonz@mastodon.social if edits from PieFed aren't reflected here that may be a bug.