serious question: has anyone done Bad Apple over #ActivityPub yet?
General Discussion
9
Posts
5
Posters
52
Views
-
serious question: has anyone done Bad Apple over #ActivityPub yet? like one post that’s being constantly edited or something?
-
serious question: has anyone done Bad Apple over #ActivityPub yet? like one post that’s being constantly edited or something?
@GroupNebula563 Not sure what you mean by Bad Apple but this post has seen many edits: https://mastodon.ie/@devxvda/111545931966255844
-
@GroupNebula563 Not sure what you mean by Bad Apple but this post has seen many edits: https://mastodon.ie/@devxvda/111545931966255844
-
@GroupNebula563 Ah right - thanks. Way over my head! Sorry.
-
@GroupNebula563 Ah right - thanks. Way over my head! Sorry.
@OpinionatedGeek it's fine, no biggie! :P
-
serious question: has anyone done Bad Apple over #ActivityPub yet? like one post that’s being constantly edited or something?
@GroupNebula563 It’d be cool to see 6,500+ Fediverse servers with a frame of Bad Apple posted on each one.
-
serious question: has anyone done Bad Apple over #ActivityPub yet? like one post that’s being constantly edited or something?
groupnebula563@mastodon.social me kinda with this: https://hachyderm.io/[thisismissem](/user/thisismissem%40activitypub.space)/114501692323303297
Basically I kept editing to update on where the petition was at, and to bump it in people's notifications so they'd possibly share again.
-
serious question: has anyone done Bad Apple over #ActivityPub yet? like one post that’s being constantly edited or something?
@GroupNebula563 yes, about a year and a half ago:
playing bad apple over activitypub https://youtu.be/R0yGasfjhT8
-
@GroupNebula563 It’d be cool to see 6,500+ Fediverse servers with a frame of Bad Apple posted on each one.
@MOULE @GroupNebula563 not exactly, but there's @badapple which has 6500+ posts on one account
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
Tor: here is a list https://fedilist.com/instance?q=&ip=&software=®istrations=&onion=only
I2P: http://mastodon.i2p is currently online
Yggdrasil: there was a few, but I can't find them now
-
Are there #activitypub networks inside non-clearnet networks
-
How about other protocol like #zot #nomad (#hubzilla) or #matrix ?
You could make the same kind of comparison.
Otherwise great video very clear and understandable
-
RE: https://ohai.social/@miri64/115870265456939250
Again a new presentation of #activitypub and #atprotocol
-
It looks like Kevin Roose (NY Times columnist who hosts the Hard Fork podcast, hence the name) set up theforkiverse and invited folks to join. FYI @laurenshof new instance alert, the start of a trend?
-
Follow the instance theforkiverse.com*
All I know is that it's a new but well-publicized instance with a lot of new people introducing themselves.
*I know how to follow instances on Fedilab but not anywhere else.
-
@Jasper Burns
Permissions, part 3: At contact level
Let'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
-
@Jasper Burns
Permissions, part 2: At channel level
The top level of Hubzilla's permissions system is the whole channel. On Mastodon, that'd be your account and everything that happens on it.
Translated to Mastodon again, for each of the above permissions, your account would have seven or eight choices whom to grant the corresponding permission:
Anyone on the internet (only available where this makes sense, it's mostly viewing permissions, but it also includes "Can fave and reply to your toots")Anyone in the FediverseEither anyone on Mastodon or anyone using ActivityPub*Anyone on the same server as you (mastodon.social in your case)Anyone who follows you**Any mutual followersOnly those of your mutual followers whom you've explicitly granted that permissionNobody but you yourself
*It's unclear what exactly this option means. See, Hubzilla is not based on ActivityPub. It is based on its own protocol, Zot. When it was created, it was the only server software that used Zot, so limiting permissions to Hubzilla and limiting permissions to whatever uses Zot had the same effect, seeing as Hubzilla could and still can also connect to a whole lot of other things using a whole lot of other protocols. So nowadays, "Anybody in this network" may mean anybody using Zot which means anybody on Hubzilla or (streams), or it may mean anybody on Hubzilla which means just that, excluding (streams).
**This translates to Mastodon badly. Basically, Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte know three states of connection. Either a Mastodon follow request, that's a "contact". Or a mutual follower, that's a "confirmed contact" because it's listed on your connections page, and you have control over that connection. Or only you follow someone, that's a "confirmed contact", too, because, again, because it's listed on your connections page, and you have control over that connection. The concept of confirmed follower doesn't exist because confirming a connection request will automatically make it a mutual connection. Remember we aren't talking about Twitter followers and Twitter followed, but about Faceboook friends.
The choices on (streams) and Forte, translated to Mastodon, are:
Anyone on the internet (only available where this makes sense, it's mostly viewing permissions, but it also includes "Can fave and reply to your toots")Anyone in the FediverseAny mutual followersOnly you and those of your mutual followers whom you've explicitly granted that permission
To stick with Mastodon equivalents, there are a few more settings on Hubzilla (as for (streams) and Forte, I've covered them in the previous comment already).
I guess you already know the switch that hides your account from Google and other search engines and the switch that makes your account automatically accept follow requests.
You know that you can mention anyone out of the blue on Mastodon, regardless of whether they follow you or you follow them or not, and they're always notified? Imagine this being notified is optional. And off by default. On Hubzilla, both is the case.
Okay, so, next, you don't allow anyone on the internet to reply to your toots. But there's an option that "half-allows" this: Anyone on the internet can send replies to your toots, even if they don't have any Fediverse account at all. Now it comes: You have to approve these replies. You have a green button that you can click, and the reply becomes visible, and it's added to the thread to which it belongs. Before then, nobody can see the reply but you. You also have a red button, and when you click it, the reply is rejected and deleted.
There are two clear use-cases for this. One is when you want absolute control over who replies what to you. Then you don't allow anyone to reply to your toots, but you activate this option. When someone does reply, you can choose whether to let the reply through or delete it.
The other one is a use-case that doesn't work on Mastodon, namely when you want to run a Hubzilla channel as a fully public long-form blog with a target audience that isn't limited to the Fediverse, and you want everyone to be able to comment on your posts, even without having some Fediverse account and following you first, but you want to keep spam out.
Lastly, there's the option that if you don't allow everyone to see your images and other media at https://mastodon.social/@jasperb/media, these images and other media can still be seen attached to toots by those who are allowed to see the toots that they're attached to.
(6/9)
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #Privacy #Security #Permission #Permissions
