@hugh@ausglam.space A few do, Pleroma historically supported it. Not sure if they still do.

Part of the problem is that it's kind of unwieldy to work with. C2S apparently requires developers to handle all logic on the client side, rather than the server. I've also heard that there's vagueness in the spec on how to do certain things.

The Mastodon API ended up being a lot easier to work with, and overtook the client ecosystem. It actually ended up becoming so popular that most Fediverse clients and platforms have adopted it. It's also one of the factors as to why so many Fediverse platforms are full-stack servers, rather than clients.

I personally still think that C2S has potential, it just requires capable hands to implement.

@trwnh@mastodon.social @kichae@community.nodebb.org Yeah, I agree that we have to fix this first. It requires a cultural change as well as a technical one, we have a lot of debt with both. Some of this requires a radical rethinking of how things work today.

@trwnh@mastodon.social @kichae@community.nodebb.org Yeah, I can get on board with that. I think the mastocentric context (and the "do everything from one form / vantage point" thing) have ultimately set us back in a variety of ways, and we should explore ways to fix this.

@trwnh@mastodon.social @kichae@community.nodebb.org That is 100% fair, and I think we are in agreement.

We don't want to emulate the Capitalist mode of "growth at all costs", that would be objectively awful. The question is, and I'm not sure there's a complete answer yet, is "can we grow sustainably, in a healthy way, in service of these goals?"

In our current setting, I'm not sure. So much of this network is predicated on free and unpaid labor. Even the most successful projects make comparatively little to our competition.

@trwnh@mastodon.social @kichae@community.nodebb.org So, I have some differing opinions on this...

1. There is a subset of the community that is sometimes very vocal towards any change or shift to the structure, form, conventions, and population of the network. It can be overtly hostile to the point that it opposes any kind of growth, evolution, change, or means for people building in this space to meaningfully support themselves through their work. This mindset reeks of elitist gatekeeping hidden under a thin veneer of fake praxis.

2. Given the nature of this network, the idea that it has to be one thing to anyone is kind of nonsensical. People have preconceived notions of what this network is, what it can be, and who can use it. The idea that a community is being trampled just because a bunch of new people came in with different ways of being kind of doesn't make sense to me. Can't communities just decide to cut off the onslaught of n00bs, if their differences are so offensive?

3. The ecosystem around this network is practically anemic when it comes to financial support. I think we confuse this idea of making money and marketplaces with capital-C Capitalism. It's okay to have goods and services and subscriptions and monetization! It doesn't have to be a total soul-sucking VC monstrosity.

4. The network can in fact contain multitudes, even when operators or communities might seem contradictory or exclusive to one another. It does not have to unilaterally connect everybody to everything. Similarly, it doesn't have to unilaterally align to block things like corporations. There's space for the super-grassroots things, and commercial things.

5. Negativity towards something going mainstream is weird to me. Some of us actually want this network to grow to the point that people can be liberated from all the other shitty networks out there. Some of the steps to doing that includes embracing different kinds of businesses, fixing long-term usability and design issues, and figuring out what appeals to a broader group of people.

@julian@community.nodebb.org Yep, that makes sense. I believe that both our WordPress site and PeerTube channels are technically Group Actors, though I will have to revisit that.

I just think it would be interesting to use ActivityPub to automatically submit posts to our various categories, such as our podcast automatically posting to a Podcast category, or our news articles about the Fediverse to appear as forum submissions under the Fediverse category.

The effect of this would be that Actors could automatically have content announced to various groups in a native way, so Lemmy or PieFed or MBin users subscribed to @fediverse@forum.wedistribute.org would see that content as submissions that could be upvoted or interacted with.

@julian@community.nodebb.org Hey, no problem! I think the biggest stumbling block was understanding how federation works. For example, if my forum has ActivityPub enabled, and I create a category, do I have to do anything to fetch it from another platform?

The answer is that federation works automatically, and the category shortname is what's used for a federation lookup. So "announcements" becomes @announcements@forum.wedistribute.org.

It's mostly little things like that, spelling out the standard behavior and explaining outcomes. I'd be happy to contribute documentation as I continue to use NodeBB!

@julian@community.nodebb.org Oh wow, I just saw that it automatically appeared on Lemmy after a few minutes. 🤯

Hey @julian@community.nodebb.org I'm currently experimenting with a NodeBB setup that has ActivityPub enabled. I saw that documentation was a little bit sparse, and just wanted to expand my understanding.

I've seen NodeBB interact with different parts of the Fediverse. In my setup, I see that categories can follow existing Actors, such as profiles, blogs, and Lemmy Groups. Are categories themselves capable of being Actors in NodeBB?

We're kind of interested in maybe setting up a user community on We Distribute's infra, and integrating into the Threadiverse with Lemmy, Piefed, Mbin, and everyone else. I'm just trying to understand capabilities and limitations.