I think the #ActivityPub client-to-server API is extremely important and underrated.
Fediverso
34
Posts
8
Posters
20
Views
-
@deadsuperhero so, here's my best bet. I can be wrong!
1. Get some servers to implement the API well.
2. Get some must-have clients that run on those servers. This shows the value of the API.
3. Our leading servers shift to supporting it.That may work; I don't know. It's my best bet right now!
I want to note that WordPress is working on the API!
-
@django I would object to FedBOX having "signaled interest or intenent".
FedBOX, and the GoActivityPub library that's been built upon, simply "support" client to server and have been since it's inception 7-8 years ago.
-
Here's the thing: Mastodon already has a really good API. There's a whole ecosystem of clients around it, to the point that many other Fediverse implementations adopted it, so that they can use the apps.
I don't think this is a bad thing in and of itself. But, if we want projects like Mastodon to support it, the value proposition has to provide things that the Mastodon API does not.
I think a killer feature to focus on would be identity management.
Yes. Mastodon has always given their own product decisions precedence over healthy evolution of the ecosystem as a whole. And despite many people being very frustrated about that, I think this is perfectly valid decision. After all choosing to implement an open standard should not come with the obligation to maintain/evolve that standard. It is only smart to do so, and Mastodon did this with an eye on their own product development.
Imho it is really the broader dev ecosystem that is at fault in letting the fedi be taken hostage by past Mastodon decisions, making them the post-facto #interoperability leader. As for Mastodon API I'd argue that its users are not on the fediverse. They are on Mastodon.
Identity management may be killer feature, but only when first a sound #ActivityPub foundation is in place. AS/AP isn't as-yet robust enough to be the future of social networking. I'd say the extensibility mechanism is killer feature, and having SDK's and devtools for that.
-
Yes. Mastodon has always given their own product decisions precedence over healthy evolution of the ecosystem as a whole. And despite many people being very frustrated about that, I think this is perfectly valid decision. After all choosing to implement an open standard should not come with the obligation to maintain/evolve that standard. It is only smart to do so, and Mastodon did this with an eye on their own product development.
Imho it is really the broader dev ecosystem that is at fault in letting the fedi be taken hostage by past Mastodon decisions, making them the post-facto #interoperability leader. As for Mastodon API I'd argue that its users are not on the fediverse. They are on Mastodon.
Identity management may be killer feature, but only when first a sound #ActivityPub foundation is in place. AS/AP isn't as-yet robust enough to be the future of social networking. I'd say the extensibility mechanism is killer feature, and having SDK's and devtools for that.
Right now extensibility of #ActivityPub shapes up as custom app-by-app app-centric development where individual devs just pragmatically throw new stuff on the wire, and when their app gains any popularity or other apps to integrate in a similarish application, things are bolted onto that in random ways. That whole story really constitutes a Big Ball of Mud anti-pattern that only introduces protocol decay, tech debt, and whack-a-mole programming, that is very hard to get rid of once there exists an installed base.
The reason that we do things that way is very understandable. It works in a grassroots environment where indivualist devs find it very hard and not valuable to collaborate at scale in what amounts to a kind of design-by-consensus process. But it comes at a high cost, where interoperability is basically out the door and any app has to be shaped as a pretzel and adopt all the quirks introduced by predecessors in a particular app domain to fit itself on the wire.
-
Right now extensibility of #ActivityPub shapes up as custom app-by-app app-centric development where individual devs just pragmatically throw new stuff on the wire, and when their app gains any popularity or other apps to integrate in a similarish application, things are bolted onto that in random ways. That whole story really constitutes a Big Ball of Mud anti-pattern that only introduces protocol decay, tech debt, and whack-a-mole programming, that is very hard to get rid of once there exists an installed base.
The reason that we do things that way is very understandable. It works in a grassroots environment where indivualist devs find it very hard and not valuable to collaborate at scale in what amounts to a kind of design-by-consensus process. But it comes at a high cost, where interoperability is basically out the door and any app has to be shaped as a pretzel and adopt all the quirks introduced by predecessors in a particular app domain to fit itself on the wire.
It does not need to be that way. I am quite happy after all (after being initially frustrated) by how #ATProto has disrupted things, and opened the eyes of devs in the #ActivityPub ecosystem that we must act or lose out (stay niche, which may be fine too) to the Atmoshpere and how it enables devs to focus on service and product delivery instead of low-level wire plumbing and continuous breakages.
ATProto also shows the way that we can now follow on the #fediverse to catch up again: cocreate a similar robust basis for people to build on. #Bluesky had the advantage of a greenfield start and dedicated team unburdened by past decisions. And they build this whole Lexicon system and ways to introspect functionality.
We can do that too, solve the #LinkedData conundrum, and create an extensibility mechanism that allows devs to focus on service modeling. The more introspection this mechanism allows for, the less design-by-consensus is required, easing expansion to new domains.
-
It does not need to be that way. I am quite happy after all (after being initially frustrated) by how #ATProto has disrupted things, and opened the eyes of devs in the #ActivityPub ecosystem that we must act or lose out (stay niche, which may be fine too) to the Atmoshpere and how it enables devs to focus on service and product delivery instead of low-level wire plumbing and continuous breakages.
ATProto also shows the way that we can now follow on the #fediverse to catch up again: cocreate a similar robust basis for people to build on. #Bluesky had the advantage of a greenfield start and dedicated team unburdened by past decisions. And they build this whole Lexicon system and ways to introspect functionality.
We can do that too, solve the #LinkedData conundrum, and create an extensibility mechanism that allows devs to focus on service modeling. The more introspection this mechanism allows for, the less design-by-consensus is required, easing expansion to new domains.
@smallcircles @deadsuperhero I've quietly been borrowing ideas from AT Protocol for ActivityPub:
- declaring moderation actors
- supporting content labels (first party abd third party)
- looking at how custom feeds, DIDs and other tech may translate across -
@smallcircles @deadsuperhero I've quietly been borrowing ideas from AT Protocol for ActivityPub:
- declaring moderation actors
- supporting content labels (first party abd third party)
- looking at how custom feeds, DIDs and other tech may translate acrossI was looking at #ForgeFed which is a very sizable #ActivityPub extension (constituting the "Code forge" app domain in app-centric view, but arguably "Software development" top-level business domain in a service-oriented fedi).
The way that things are modeled here adheres more to the actor model where there's a Factory actor, which in turn creates resource actors that expose various sub-domains. For instance for the management of Issues and PR's there's a TicketTracker actor to obtain via a Factory actor on a forge instance. Though I'm not sure whether I'd modeled that in similar fashion, it is a fascinating direction where we focus much more on good protocol extension design.
All in all AS/AP offers a very granular foundation that allows for very interesting architectures, if only we dare explore them and do not dogmatically stick to some engrained notion how "social media" ought to be. I see #SocialMedia as but a small subset of #SocialNetworking.
-
I was looking at #ForgeFed which is a very sizable #ActivityPub extension (constituting the "Code forge" app domain in app-centric view, but arguably "Software development" top-level business domain in a service-oriented fedi).
The way that things are modeled here adheres more to the actor model where there's a Factory actor, which in turn creates resource actors that expose various sub-domains. For instance for the management of Issues and PR's there's a TicketTracker actor to obtain via a Factory actor on a forge instance. Though I'm not sure whether I'd modeled that in similar fashion, it is a fascinating direction where we focus much more on good protocol extension design.
All in all AS/AP offers a very granular foundation that allows for very interesting architectures, if only we dare explore them and do not dogmatically stick to some engrained notion how "social media" ought to be. I see #SocialMedia as but a small subset of #SocialNetworking.
@smallcircles @deadsuperhero not just that, but if we evolve our understanding of what AP *could* be beyond what Mastodon *needs* AP to be.
-
Can't help but wonder about terminology use and abstractions they indicate. Nowhere in the specs is there mention of 'timeline' and neither of 'feed' (except as example use in AS).
I feel we started with powerful specs to be able to model *any* social networking use case. But where the specs had blanks gradually the impls filled these in with leaky abstractions such that fedi is now hammered into a very narrow social media microblogging domain.
If an app needs "Timeline" and "Feed" concepts, then it should model them. Given the actor-based nature of AP they might be actors, or whatever is best. These concept are about solution development, i.e. what is built on top of the protocol, and not indicative of core protocol capabilities.
There's so much confusion on "where does the protocol end vs. where does my app design start".
SDK's should offer "Addressable actors exchanging msgs with object payload", and hide all impl details for the solution developer.
-
Can't help but wonder about terminology use and abstractions they indicate. Nowhere in the specs is there mention of 'timeline' and neither of 'feed' (except as example use in AS).
I feel we started with powerful specs to be able to model *any* social networking use case. But where the specs had blanks gradually the impls filled these in with leaky abstractions such that fedi is now hammered into a very narrow social media microblogging domain.
If an app needs "Timeline" and "Feed" concepts, then it should model them. Given the actor-based nature of AP they might be actors, or whatever is best. These concept are about solution development, i.e. what is built on top of the protocol, and not indicative of core protocol capabilities.
There's so much confusion on "where does the protocol end vs. where does my app design start".
SDK's should offer "Addressable actors exchanging msgs with object payload", and hide all impl details for the solution developer.
-
@smallcircles @julian @deadsuperhero we call them collections.
Except when they are called other names instead ;p
A timeline is a different thing than a collection imho. And an AS collection has some very particular functionality, which if I model a timeline in my app may not supported (e.g. reverse ordering).
Collection / 'timeline' is one of those words where sometimes they indicate an app domain, and sometimes a core protocol mechanism. Same is true with 'follow' which is sometimes a user action, sometimes indicates low-level publish/subscribe.
For core capabilities that must be part of the specs, in 'protocol space' it may be better to use terminology that is more common in messaging architectures and all the various architecture patterns that are involved. Perhaps idk we deal with a time-ordered event log or something like that.
-
@smallcircles @julian @deadsuperhero we call them collections.
@evan@cosocial.ca gosh I can't imagine assigning Add and Remove activities for a "popular" collection. It changes so often that it seems a waste of resources to try to track it.
Dynamic Collection?
Or as @smallcircles@social.coop said, even just light algorithmic ordering in a timeline makes stuffing it into a collection unwieldy.
-
I might not understand what we're talking about.
@smallcircles said that AP doesn't mention "timelines" or "feeds". We use a different term, collections. They are ordered in reverse chronological order, like what most people expect a "feed" to look like.
-
I might not understand what we're talking about.
@smallcircles said that AP doesn't mention "timelines" or "feeds". We use a different term, collections. They are ordered in reverse chronological order, like what most people expect a "feed" to look like.
I haven't seen anyone use Add and Remove activities to notify updates to the `outbox`. I don't think it would work; it's too recursive.
I've done it for other feeds, like `replies` or `followers`, and it works pretty well.
-
I haven't seen anyone use Add and Remove activities to notify updates to the `outbox`. I don't think it would work; it's too recursive.
I've done it for other feeds, like `replies` or `followers`, and it works pretty well.
#ActivityPub builds on top of #ActivityStreams in the sense that it adopted a number of its 'social primitives' defined in its vocabulary, and Collection being among those. These particular uses become 'protocol space', but other than that AS from the perspective of AP solution development is purely a set of social primitives, granular building blocks that one *may* use in a solution. AS is a utility library of sorts then. Or is that a wrong perception?
A 'feed' is something that lives in solution space, and I would only choose Collection to model it, if it offers a perfect fit in functionality. And aboveall.. does not assign some new app-specific use along the way.
I tooted today that I feel the biggest folly of the fedi is that everyone tries to cram their domain into the AS namespace. The AS primitives should not be Swiss army knives and have only singular well-defined meaning and purpose, yet they have become that along the way.
-
#ActivityPub builds on top of #ActivityStreams in the sense that it adopted a number of its 'social primitives' defined in its vocabulary, and Collection being among those. These particular uses become 'protocol space', but other than that AS from the perspective of AP solution development is purely a set of social primitives, granular building blocks that one *may* use in a solution. AS is a utility library of sorts then. Or is that a wrong perception?
A 'feed' is something that lives in solution space, and I would only choose Collection to model it, if it offers a perfect fit in functionality. And aboveall.. does not assign some new app-specific use along the way.
I tooted today that I feel the biggest folly of the fedi is that everyone tries to cram their domain into the AS namespace. The AS primitives should not be Swiss army knives and have only singular well-defined meaning and purpose, yet they have become that along the way.
@smallcircles@social.coop I feel personally called out for this 😛
-
I haven't seen anyone use Add and Remove activities to notify updates to the `outbox`. I don't think it would work; it's too recursive.
I've done it for other feeds, like `replies` or `followers`, and it works pretty well.
@evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles Mind if I butt in here with a question about management of the `replies` collection? I'm looking at this for the interaction controls FEP draft.
GoToSocial currently broadcasts an `Accept(Note)` to let followers know a reply has been accepted (see https://docs.gotosocial.org/en/latest/federation/interaction_controls/#broadcasting-accepts-for-the-benefit-of-third-servers). We'd want to add an inverse for revocation, which would be `Undo(Accept(Note))` imo.
I feel `Add` and `Remove` on the `replies` collection may be more idiomatic and, in a sense, easier. Opinions?
-
@evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles Mind if I butt in here with a question about management of the `replies` collection? I'm looking at this for the interaction controls FEP draft.
GoToSocial currently broadcasts an `Accept(Note)` to let followers know a reply has been accepted (see https://docs.gotosocial.org/en/latest/federation/interaction_controls/#broadcasting-accepts-for-the-benefit-of-third-servers). We'd want to add an inverse for revocation, which would be `Undo(Accept(Note))` imo.
I feel `Add` and `Remove` on the `replies` collection may be more idiomatic and, in a sense, easier. Opinions?
@julian@fietkau.social @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles I like Accept and Reject but @trwnh is pretty insistent on Add and Remove so I defer to them.
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@julian@fietkau.social @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles I like Accept and Reject but @trwnh is pretty insistent on Add and Remove so I defer to them.
-
@evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles Mind if I butt in here with a question about management of the `replies` collection? I'm looking at this for the interaction controls FEP draft.
GoToSocial currently broadcasts an `Accept(Note)` to let followers know a reply has been accepted (see https://docs.gotosocial.org/en/latest/federation/interaction_controls/#broadcasting-accepts-for-the-benefit-of-third-servers). We'd want to add an inverse for revocation, which would be `Undo(Accept(Note))` imo.
I feel `Add` and `Remove` on the `replies` collection may be more idiomatic and, in a sense, easier. Opinions?
-
Move Slowly and Build Bridges: Mastodon, the Fediverse, and the Struggle for Democratic Social Media by @rwg
ActivityPub: Programming for the Social Web by @evan
Governable Spaces: Democratic Design for Online Life by @ntnsndr
Is that a good start already or is there something I am missing?
-
I could use help composing an essential Fediverse (as a topic) book reading list. I'm planning on talking to people with a variety of technical backgrounds (range and expertise) so variety is good. I haven't read any of this yet but I would read it first and either (verbally) summarise points or point people to them for more info.
So far I have on my list:
(continued)
-
@smallcircles@social.coop I feel personally called out for this 😛
-
#ActivityPub builds on top of #ActivityStreams in the sense that it adopted a number of its 'social primitives' defined in its vocabulary, and Collection being among those. These particular uses become 'protocol space', but other than that AS from the perspective of AP solution development is purely a set of social primitives, granular building blocks that one *may* use in a solution. AS is a utility library of sorts then. Or is that a wrong perception?
A 'feed' is something that lives in solution space, and I would only choose Collection to model it, if it offers a perfect fit in functionality. And aboveall.. does not assign some new app-specific use along the way.
I tooted today that I feel the biggest folly of the fedi is that everyone tries to cram their domain into the AS namespace. The AS primitives should not be Swiss army knives and have only singular well-defined meaning and purpose, yet they have become that along the way.
-
I haven't seen anyone use Add and Remove activities to notify updates to the `outbox`. I don't think it would work; it's too recursive.
I've done it for other feeds, like `replies` or `followers`, and it works pretty well.
-
I might not understand what we're talking about.
@smallcircles said that AP doesn't mention "timelines" or "feeds". We use a different term, collections. They are ordered in reverse chronological order, like what most people expect a "feed" to look like.
