NodeBB-ActivityPub Bridge Test Instance

@evan @silverpill @erincandescent @julian This is what I meant by "conventional". On a forum thread, you generally read forward. On social media like Twitter, there is a heavy bias toward going reverse. And some interfaces even let you choose ascending or descending order.

@omega @Kichae @baris @julian I think the only problem here is you assume people should be able to "grok" it.I don't think that's a problem. I think people should be able to understand that the Internet is a communications platform. Growing up on IRC isn't a requirement to intuiting this; the point there was that I people understood it there and then. People should be able to understand it here and now, too. They've just been trained otherwise.

@julian Sorry if I was a bit salty earlier and I didn't want to rain on anyone's parade. There are many benefits to this proposed variation of quote posts where the person being quoted can update or delete their quote.Let me argue the other side then. One big benefit of this proposed quote post methodology is that it would be a version that Mastodon, et. al. would probably be willing to support. They have valid concerns that people will abuse quote posts to harass others. This proposal mitigates that.It also is useful in non-malicious contexts since people can fix typos and errors in their original post. It's also useful if the person being quoted wants to retract what they said, perhaps because they changed their mind on a topic or found new information.Malicious use can be mitigated in the UI by indicating the quoted person changed their post and providing a history of changes. Some platforms already do this for regular posts.The quoted person being able to delete their quote raises some unique philosophical questions, like whether a politician can delete something they said from a journalist's quote post. Or where someone intentionally changes their post in a malicious manner, which alters the quote post and makes the person quoting someone else look bad.So, there are many facets to this proposal. It still may be good to pursue even if some platforms aren't going to implement it. But there are also some scenarios we want to consider.

@trwnh @julian @angus @nutomic groups can have subgroups

@julian

Hi @kariboka @julian @evan @silverpill,I read page, not host. Please refrain from idiosyncratic or obsolete legacy.

@pfefferle@mastodon.social it was actually because of @ in actor IDs - the codepath for choosing a webfinger lookup over just accepting the URL as the ID only checked for its presence, and the code for webfinger lookups was only meant to run for the acct: protocol. So yeah, not WP fault at all, just a combination of a bug and missing feature Now both should be fixed.

@Stefan Bohacek @jdp23 @julian "Shadow mentioning" is a thing. (streams) and Forte do it to avoid clutter. Mentions don't have to be visible in a post/comment to work.

@julian @thisismissem @trwnh makes sense as well for “followers only”… if you post a post with abuse and include someone.. It *could* reach the somebody and all of their followers as well boosted via their server (with controls. Opens the abuse vector slightly.

Please make them visible when listing topics.

@julian @alex-mehr @trwnh>There's no guarantee that a collection would present items in chronological vs. reverse chronological order — are you checking the timestamps and reversing as needed?The ordering can be specified by some property of Collection>Wouldn't you need to paginage through the entire collection anyway?The client will fetch pages until it finds an item that has already been processed.> I think that informs why I set up topic synchronization in this manner, and why my idea of context collections contain only objects; to me, activities don't really mean much at all.I'd prefer context to be a collection of objects too, as long as there's a way to retrieve activity history.Activity-based sync seems more natural to me. I think ActivityPub can be better understood not as a protocol for social networking, but as a distributed database where nodes sync datasets by sending messages over the network. Messages are activities, datasets are collections. When I send a Follow activity and your server responds with an Accept, followers and following collections are updated on both sides (or their equivalents if you don't store activities and collections). More generally, any activity delivery can be viewed as a synchronization of outbox collection.I think such change of perspective can greatly improve DX and provide a solid foundation for further protocol extensions

Okay, let's try again

@eudanus_deshdoshiel@activitypub.academy a reply to your reply

@julian Ooo good point about adding the ? back on.If you're interested in a non-regex solution, here's what I have - https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/src/branch/main/app/utils.py#L247

Hi @julian @Claire - but sending incorrect json you get neither as of today, do you?

Hi,I think It would be helpful to include examples of common use cases for ActivityPub integration in NodeBB detailed setup instructions with screenshots and troubleshooting tips for potential issues users might encounter. Additionally a FAQ section addressing common questions could be valuable.Thanks