NodeBB-ActivityPub Bridge Test Instance

@julian @evanprodromou yes, that is because the plugin processes the follow synchronously 🥸thanks a lot for tweaking nodebb to be compatible and I will see how we can improve that!!!

devnull:the fact that Discourse (as SocialHub) handled that and reported that another post came from itself suggests that perhaps it went down a logic path that is normally reserved for local posts.My theory: conflict between Create and Announce(Create)https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/federated-socialhub-categories/4648/21

@eeeee there are a few fixes in the pipeline and there's always work on polish (especially for onboarding new admins), but that can really wait for v4.1 Was hoping for before 2025 but there's no rush, I will likely wait until the new year and cut the release sometime in January prior to FOSDEM.

@silverpill@mitra.social that's a good point. Both Lemmy and NodeBB implemented FEP 1b12, which is why those category/community actors share content. So yes, NodeBB's category actors also only share content, and don't produce any of their own.

@thisismissem@hachyderm.io confirmed, the missing user agent was the issue

Hi @FrankM, I have a write-up on content discovery (including needing to follow people) here: https://docs.nodebb.org/activitypub/discovery/

@julian Many of the comments in this thread are appearing in Hubzilla as being from activitypub@community.nodebb.org instead of the real author.P.S. I'd start a new topic for this but I don't know how remotely.

Please make them visible when listing topics.

@julian @silverpill also your Link.href is being escaped incorrectly

@julian @thisismissem which is to say, the following are equivalent within the same scope...@\context: [{toot: http://joinmastodon.org/ns#,Emoji: toot:Emoji},{toot: http://joinmastodon.org/ns#,IdentityProof: toot:IdentityProof}]@\context: [{toot: http://joinmastodon.org/ns#,Emoji: toot:Emoji,IdentityProof: toot:IdentityProof}]

@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 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.

thisismissem:This sounds like a wonderful FEP! This article published two weeks ago mentions the issue (highlight mine) ..Another example I personally encountered was a frustrating issue while implementing ActivityPub for this blog: updating a post propagated to Lemmy but not Mastodon. Despite the Update activity being accepted, Mastodon silently rejected it unless the updated timestamp changed—a logical but unofficial requirement. Developers must track down subtle implementation details that aren't formally documented, significantly complicating adoption and usage.https://chrastecky.dev/technology/activity-pub-the-good-the-bad-and-the-uglyI'd write it off as a Mastodon-ism, but it's actually better to have that property present, so now it is.So one that's becoming de-facto standard. Ideally if Mastodon introduces such logic, it is up to them to remember to inform the broader developer community via a FEP.---Aside: "If all we have is a Note .. "Overall it is such a pity that everything is to be a Note or else.. And the default pragmatic urge of most devs is to assign app-specific business logic to an existing or custom property within it, to create all the behavioral flavors. And then call it a day "my app works" and throw the protocol decay out in the ecosystem.There are other improvements regarding revision control as long-time open issues, see e.g. @trwnh's https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/exposing-edit-history-via-activitystreams/2930 (mastodon issue # dd. January 2023). In this issue @stevebate suggests previousversions from the ForgeFed Vocabulary.What do we do when we "Edit a Note"? Is using the CRUD of ActivityStreams really the best option, or are we really "Creating a Revision". Shouldn't ActivityPub have a proper way to Revision Control across the board?If my new Fediverse app included both editable and non-editable posts, how I'd hack that in on top of the current mechanism? Just pondering this. It seems we go out of our way not to use the extension mechanism of ActivityPub as it was intended to be used, cramming everything in NoteCrud​. Is that official best-practice for the future fediverse now, I wonder.Many more examples seen in discussions. The ActivityPub specs state that you may ditch JSON-LD for plain JSON, but doesn't say that the whole idea of a semantic type model should be thrown out of the window as well. In https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/distinguish-between-posts-and-direct-messages/2283 the example is people going out of their way not to define ChatMessage in favor of Note + property-logic.

@kichae@lemmy.ca image attachments should be better handled by NodeBB now

@unexpectedteapot Thank you. Indeed I missed that distinction, sorry for the noise @hongminhee.

@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.

omega Honestly, I don't think the basics of federation are that big of a problem for people. The idea is simple enough, it's just that it's kind of unthinkable for most folks in the current internet paradigm. "Imagine if you could follow stuff on Twitter, and talk to Twitter users, from Facebook". That captures the whole promise. The whole idea. And it's aided by the fact that Facebook and Twitter are so very obviously different things. Different companies. Different websites. Different apps. Different services. They look different, they're labelled different, their apps are different, etc. And it would be understandable that if they did communicate between them, that there might be some rough edges. Now look at mastodon.social, mstdn.social, and mstdn.ca. They look the same. Try lemmy.ml, lemm.ee, and startrek.website. They look the same. The fediverse has adopted "make every website look like a dumb terminal" as a design aesthetic, and "the website you use doesn't matter" as a recruitment philosophy. And it just doesn't work.

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