Skip to content

Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale Logo Fediverso

Social Forum federato con il resto del mondo. Non contano le istanze, contano le persone
  1. Home
  2. Categories
  3. General Discussion
  4. New Fediverse features that actually aren't new

New Fediverse features that actually aren't new

General Discussion
1 1 8
  • jupiter_rowland@hub.netzgemeinde.euundefined
    Whenever someone announces to "bring" something "to the Fediverse", chances are that Friendica has actually had it since 2010, for five and a half years longer than Mastodon has been around.

    For example, just about everyone on Mastodon is fully convinced that Eugen Rochko has brought quote-posts to the Fediverse this year. That's because next to nobody on Mastodon knows that Friendica has been able to quote-post practically everything in the Fediverse, including Mastodon toots, for 15 years now.

    And if Friendica doesn't have it, chances are still that Hubzilla has it, and that Hubzilla has probably had it for longer than Mastodon has been around, too.

    For example, private messages that are actually private. Mastodon doesn't have them because the "privacy" of Mastodon DMs is only "guaranteed" by limiting whom a DM is sent to. Hubzilla does have them and has had them since 2012, since it was still named Red. How? Because Hubzilla also limits who is permitted to see a DM.

    Oh, and Hubzilla even offers optional encryption on top of that.

    Or how about server-independent identity? Everyone still waiting for Bluesky to finally be the pioneer who invents this and implements it for the first time? LOL! Once again, Hubzilla has had this since 2012. Not a vague concept, not an unstable proof-of-concept, but daily-driven by production-grade channels on production-grade servers. (streams) has it, too, inherited from Hubzilla through a whole number of forks. Forte has it, too, and Forte is the first and, so far, only Fediverse server software that uses ActivityPub for nomadic identity.

    Now I'm waiting for someone to announce that something will "bring" actual groups "to the Fediverse". A feature that was actually introduced to the Fediverse by StatusNet in 2008, and that's also available on Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte. Not to mention that the very principle of the Threadiverse (Lemmy, the remains of /kbin, Mbin, PieFed) is based on groups.

    This is what happens when you think that the feature set of the whole Fediverse is the feature set of Mastodon and maybe Pixelfed because that's all you know.

    Speaking of Mastodon: Just because it's being "brought to the Fediverse", doesn't mean it'll be adopted by Mastodon.

    #Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #MastodonCentrism #MastodonNormativity #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #NomadicIdentity #StatusNet #Threadiverse #Lemmy #/kbin #Mbin #PieFed #Groups #FediGroups #FediverseGroups
    pepecyb@hub.hubzilla.huundefined vextaur@blog.taursnd.hausundefined julian@activitypub.spaceundefined 4 Replies
    1
Log in to reply

Feed RSS
New Fediverse features that actually aren't new

Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
@pierobosio@soc.bosio.info
Post suggeriti
  • jupiter_rowland@hub.netzgemeinde.euundefined

    @Jasper Burns

    General Discussion cwfediversemeta quotepostdebate quotetootdebate fediversegroups fediversemeta quotedshares quotetweets quoteboosts
    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    10 Views
    jupiter_rowland@hub.netzgemeinde.euundefined
    @Jasper BurnsPermissions, part 3: At contact levelLet's go one level further down. The second level of Hubzilla's permission system is per contact. On Mastodon, that'd be those whom you follow.If Mastodon was like Hubzilla, you'd have the possibility to create permission templates which you can then assign to those whom you follow. (Hubzilla calls them "contact roles", by the way.)Like, you could make one template for those whom you really trust. You grant all permissions in that template.Then you could make one that's more privacy-oriented. You only grant permission to send you toots, fave and reply to your toots and send you DMs.In theory, you could also make one for those whom you absolutely must follow, but whose toots you don't want. In this one, you only grant permission to fave and reply to your toots and send you DMs. This, however, only makes sense on something that works like Facebook, something like Hubzilla, where you can only confirm follow requests by also following back because connections are always mutual by default.Then you could go to your list of followed accounts. And you could edit and configure them, one by one. You could choose which of these permission templates is assigned to them and thereby what you allow them to do. While you're already there, you could also, for example, add them to lists or remove them from lists.There's one catch, though: If you grant a permission for your whole account, you automatically grant it to everyone whom you follow. You cannot forbid one of your followed something your account generally allows. So if you want to be able to choose whether someone is allowed to do something or not, you must not allow it for your whole account, and instead, you must allow it followed by followed.(streams) and Forte make things a great deal easier than Hubzilla, by the way: They don't require such templates anymore. Instead, when you go edit a contact, you'll see one on-off switch for each permission, and you can turn each permission on or off right there, right then (provided it isn't inherited from the channel). You still have such templates, but they only serve to grant the same set of permissions to a whole lot of contacts without having to click single permissions on or off for all of them.(7/9)#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #Privacy #Security #Permission #Permissions
  • jupiter_rowland@hub.netzgemeinde.euundefined

    State of the Iceshrimp, December, 2025

    General Discussion cwfediversemeta fediversemeta iceshrimp.net iceshrimpnet cwlongpost cwfedimeta longpost fedimeta
    8
    0 Votes
    8 Posts
    13 Views
    Guest?
    super, danke dir für den Hinweis! :)
  • julian@activitypub.spaceundefined

    Deleting a post vs deleting an entire comment tree

    Technical Discussion deletion threadiverse activitypub
    65
    3 Votes
    65 Posts
    64 Views
    trwnh@mastodon.socialundefined
    @julian i'd say the confusion is primarily that we've shifted topic around several different things and i'm still not sure which is the intended topic of the discussion :x- deleting posts that are in a thread- removing posts from a thread- implications for downstream posts in a thread when some ancestor in the reply chain is deleted/removed- deleting a thread that is in a forum- removing a thread from a forum- moving a thread to the "uncategorized" forum- ...?
  • fediforum.org@bsky.brid.gyundefined

    Have you heard of the #Threadiverse, and important part of the #Fediverse?

    Uncategorized threadiverse fediverse
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    14 Views
    fediforum.org@bsky.brid.gyundefined
    Have you heard of the #Threadiverse, and important part of the #Fediverse? If not: Julian Lam (@julian@activitypub.space) is coming to FediForum next week and will talk about: Threadiverse improvements. Join us!FediForum