@jwz we have a lot of Pixelfed specific features like ephemeral stories, portfolios, collections, etc.

@jwz ActivityPub C2S is missing a few bits. Rather than fill in the gaps, most fedi devs have decided to rewrite the same delivery-server logic over and over and over and over and over and o

@jwz It's a distinct failing of the system, I think. In theory, you can follow mastodon accounts on pixelfed, and vice versa, but the affordances live with the base service/UI that you sign up for. There's no federated identity where (e.g.) a mastodon account can be used to give you combined access to a pixelfed (or other) service.

It's one of the reasons I haven't signed up for any other Fedi services -- I can't be arsed to manage multiple logins.

@dansup @jwz those could still be handled with Pixelfed being an AP Client -- say pixelfed.example asks to oauth into activitypub.example, and whatever you would POST to an inbox you would instead POST to your outbox

@darkling @jwz

Mastodon, Pixelfed, Friendica are 3 examples (of many) of completely different software platforms that serve completely different intents and have different features sets that mirror/mimic their contemporaries like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. The difference is that the former share a common backend component that allows you to interact with each other across the various platforms, whereas the latter do not.

/Continued

@darkling @jwz

You don't sign up on all of them. You sign up on the one, or few, that provide the services and features you're interested in using. And you use that, or those, to interact with anyone on any activitypub based server, running any of the dozens and dozens of different activitypub based software platforms.

That's not a flaw of activitypub. That's its primary feature.

/Continued

Apropos of nothing, I remember some guy who spent most of the 90s having people tell him that it was insane to combine a mail reader and a usenet reader into the same app, because they are completely different software platforms that serve completely different intents and have different feature sets.

Oh wait, that was me. The guy was me.

@darkling @jwz

If you enjoy a Twitter like experience and want that kind of an experience on the fediverse, you sign up for a mastodon account or one of the other Twitter style micro blogging activitypub platforms.

If you want more of a picture focused Instagram style experience, sign up for a pixelfed account.

The beauty of the fediverse is that it's really whatever you want it to be. You got options. Which can be overwhelming, for sure. I think it's great though.

@finner @darkling @jwz

or, hear me out: you sign up for one account, like email. you can then use whatever apps you want with that same account.

mastodon, pixelfed, etc don't all need to be separate accounts on separate servers. just like we don't need a separate Web for chrome vs firefox -- they let you browse the same Web.

@jwz You could say the same for Mastodon…

@trwnh @darkling @jwz

I think that sounds like a great idea. Is that a proposed change to the activitypub spec? That would be pretty killer.

@finner @darkling @jwz it's how the spec was designed lol

there is a Client api to POST activities to an outbox, and your Server delivers those activities to other inboxes

it's not a change in protocol as much as it is a change in philosophy. everyone chose to build monoliths instead

@trwnh @darkling @jwz

Ah. I was not aware of that. Interesting to know.

@trwnh @jwz yeah that's true, that would be interesting to see!

@trwnh

I feel like I've had a reasonably decent grasp of the way things currently work in practice. I'm trying to make sure I'm wrapping my head around how it would work based on this new information you've given me.

Would you liken this to like a single sign-on system? When someone follows you, they follow your sign-on handle and they would receive anything you posted from any service while logged in with that handle? Wouldn't that need a centralized sign-on service of some sort?

@finner yeah, that's pretty much it

you have an actor on social.example and you use clients like mastodon.example or pixelfed.example as you feel like it

people follow your actor on social.example and your actor on social.example can send out arbitrary activities to those followers. these activities are generated by the clients (mastodon.example, pixelfed.example, etc) and handed off to your outbox on social.example

this is like using thunderbird or outlook which don't do raw SMTP themselves.

@trwnh@mastodon.social

I was just talking about this here. I think I even mentioned you.

Shouldn't all ActivityPub servers implement all objects and leave it to the client? - Fediverse - Fedia

Wouldn't that be better? Let me see if I can explain what I mean. Here on the fediverse each server is kind of restricted to what the user can post....

(fedia.io)

Is there any future where we could see this being the future of #activitypub?

@TheFederatedPipe it could happen in maybe 10 years, idk — it requires philosophical and cultural changes on parts of fedi devs, to stop building monoliths that clone popular centralized apps, and start building for the Web instead. things like facebook and twitter are not built with an open decentralized web in mind. they are built for keeping you in-app. copying their design means copying their assumptions.

@TheFederatedPipe the other thing that keeps most devs from adopting C2S currently is a lack of existing infrastructure, and some unfilled gaps in the user experience that require extensions to fill in. we also need wider standardization of things like authorization and authentication, especially cross-domain. having a reference server would probably help a lot, but it’s a chicken-and-egg situation a bit…

You know? As much as I love the fediverse, things like this kind of disappoint me? I'm not sure if that is the correct way of saying it. Like not everything is actually how it was promised. But I guess is better than the other option, hopefully we get a lot of this things sort out.