@dansup @silverpill Oh, that explains it! I was wondering where all those federated forums were and why I was hardly ever seeing anything from them in my timelines... Thanks.

@dansup Thanks!

What would you recommend to implementers in this case?
I know that some servers (e.g. Pleroma) use metadata.federation.enabled flag. Removing activitypub from protocols is also a good idea.

cc @julian

silverpill@mitra.social dansup@mastodon.social we'll reach out to the owners of the two top forums and suggest enabling federation.

The FEP is also great, we'll be following along and implementing.

Keep in mind federation can be turned on but no categories federate, so perhaps that case needs to be called out.

@silverpill @dansup @julian hm... technically federation is only the server-to-server part of the protocol. So there could be a case for advertising activitypub via nodeinfo but keeping the federation disabled. Don't know how useful that would be though.

antolius@mastodon.social the thing here is that "x server federates" isn't a binary thing. We support quite fine grained privileges, and that extends to ActivityPub as well.

So representing that state as a Boolean isn't quite right either.

@dansup @silverpill sounds like if a NodeBB instance isn't federating and isn't using activitypub, then it shouldn't list it in the protocols supported?

cc @julian

@julian @antolius arguably, activitypub as a protocol in NodeInfo should be deprecated and in its place activitypub-s2s and activitypub-c2s should exist, since activitypub is two protocols in a trenchcoat

@thisismissem @julian that seems like the cleanest solution. Would require migrating current implementations though. I don't know how big of a deal that is. We could probably treat the old activitypub value as the s2s variant in the meantime.

@antolius @julian or just treat it as ambiguous?