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

The problem of cross-community posting

Fediverse
56 23 139
  • Nah, because if if there's a post that's of interest to more than one community, and I'm only in one of those, then I probably don't want to see comments from those other communities, because they will be related to topics/aspects that I'm not here for (otherwise I'd also be subscribed to those communities).

    From a discoverability standpoint it would be beneficial to see other communities' conversations on the same post.

  • How does moderation work in this case?

    That's one of the issues that need to be worked through. It's a totally legitimate concern.

    In cases where communities with polarising viewpoints discuss the same topic, it would lead to inter-community disputes and exacerbate some instance relationships.

    One solution would be to have the original community be responsible for moderation, and moderation actions from cross-posted communities only affect their "view", so to speak.

    I don't know what the answer is quite yet.

  • That's one of the issues that need to be worked through. It's a totally legitimate concern.

    In cases where communities with polarising viewpoints discuss the same topic, it would lead to inter-community disputes and exacerbate some instance relationships.

    One solution would be to have the original community be responsible for moderation, and moderation actions from cross-posted communities only affect their "view", so to speak.

    I don't know what the answer is quite yet.

    and moderation actions from cross-posted communities only affect their “view”, so to speak.

    But then if someone posts insults (just to take a simple example), then the original community mods would have to moderate it, and can't rely on the cross-posted communities mods? Wouldn't that lead to cross-posted communities mods just consider that the original community mods are the ones responsible for the moderation, and leave it up to them?

    And in that case, then the OG community mods would probably just prefer all the comments to happen on their community where they can delete comments and ban people.

  • Are the posts and communities so strictly structured that a post cannot be a part of multiple communities?

    That's my understanding. If I understand correctly, a post belongs to a single community, but two posts referring to the same URL will be identified as such by Piefed, which is how the crossposts community consolidation happens.

    In NodeBB categories and topics are all distinct elements, and the fact that a topic belongs in a category is contrived. A topic could be part of a user (pinned topics anyone?), a group (group only conversations?), or in this case… multiple categories.

    Interesting, there's definitely discussions to have about how to map that with the Piefed/Lemmy structure

  • They are separated because communities have different rules and different moderation teams.

    I know as a user that the same comment on instance A and instance B would be perceived differently. I also know that if I report a comment, it will be reviewed by different mod teams.

    As a mod, having a clear view of what comments have been made in my community and which ones have not also helps.

  • From a discoverability standpoint it would be beneficial to see other communities' conversations on the same post.

    You can already do that in Lemmy and piefed - crossposts are listed at the top

  • The different communities on Piefed are still separated within the post. You can still see which community you would be replying to

    I'm thinking more about less clutter while reading

  • I'm thinking more about less clutter while reading

    It's not that cluttered. Have you looked at how it looks on piefed?

  • Fediverse projects are maturing and adoption of them is trending up. I'm excited for the further development of the underlying technologies as well as the apps being built to leverage those technologies into even more integrated, user-friendly experiences.

    With any developing tech, small annoyances are found and ultimately patched or worked around. It's to be expected that no user experience is ever perfect, even for matured ecosystems. Typically, some smaller annoyances are tolerated when balanced with the overall utility and usefulness of the tech.

    One of the issues I've noticed (and I'm sure I'm not the first or only), is that when posts are relevant enough that the OP decides to cross-post into multiple communities, the comments and engagement stays with each community post leading to separate conversations.

    The existance of separate conversations itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. Maybe you post a recipe for Pot Roast in a general cooking community and also a community that helps refine recipes to improve them. It may be that the two separate conversations make more sense as the nature of discourse is focused on two different aspects of the content posted. If they were combined, it would be more difficult to sift through chatter to get at the discussion you were looking for.

    This concept is true for different communities as well as different instances. Maybe the Pot Roast recipe conversation generated on lemmy.carnivores is substantly different from the conversation at lemmy.vegan-curious and the existance of both is bolstered by the cultures and seneabilities of the different instance/communities. That could create usefull and/or thoughtful discourse that maybe wouldn't have happened if everyone was mixed together and talking past each other.

    However, there are plenty of informative posts attached to very similar communities on a given instance as well as posted to mirror-communities across separate instances. Each individual post is a separate entity and i find myself jumping in to different conversations of the same content to see what's being said in each. In addition to general replies often asking the same questions across all of the posts, unique engagement is diffuse and not connecting.

    I imagine that an OP would have trouble keeping up with all of these different interactions and likely defaulting to paying their attention to only one or two while the remaining posts are left to fend for themselves. Even if the OP stayed on top of them all, I assume they'd often have to answer the same questions multiple times.

    _The question I pose is: _

    What is the solution to myriad and diffuse conversations around cross-posts? Is there a way to handle this situation thru lemmy-ettiquette or does it require a technological solution?

    Maybe we handle it thru culture and expectation. If the decided upon method was to post once and then link that post to other communities for exposure, maybe that funnels everyone into one post to interact (when that's what OP wants).

    Is there a software solution on the app developer level that combines like posts together? Is it a protocol level solution thats required? Maybe something that allows a single post to essentially 'tag' different communities for exposure, while only posting once? Can we associate posts to an individual user rather than associating the post to a community, so all replies come to the user post rather than in a community?

    I don't know what the solution looks like and I'm not savvy enough to understand the protocol/software side to know if any of my examples are realistic. I also don't know if this is an issue for anyone else, or at least one that lemmy-ites actuallly care about enough to try and solve.

    Does anyone know if work is being done to address this? Am I focusing on something that is simply not a priority? I welcome your thoughts.

    ...I tried to choose what I thought was the best place for this post, but I'm open to moving it if I was in error. (Ironically, something that might be easier if posts were handled differently). :)

    From what I recall, I believe that Reddit handles crossposts in a similar manner, that is, comments in one crosspost in one subreddit don't show in other crossposted subreddits.

    Like Blaze mentioned in another comment, one of the problems with putting all the comments together is that different communities have different rules, so a comment that would be fine in one community might get you in trouble in a different community. People already get confused by this as it is. If all the comments from different crossposts get aggregated in one place, I think it would cause complete confusion and more work for mods.

  • From what I recall, I believe that Reddit handles crossposts in a similar manner, that is, comments in one crosspost in one subreddit don't show in other crossposted subreddits.

    Like Blaze mentioned in another comment, one of the problems with putting all the comments together is that different communities have different rules, so a comment that would be fine in one community might get you in trouble in a different community. People already get confused by this as it is. If all the comments from different crossposts get aggregated in one place, I think it would cause complete confusion and more work for mods.

    Piefed splits up the comment boxes based on community when a thread is crossposted, so you can still distinguish between the comment boxes on different communities despite them being visible.

    That said, a potential future option here would be a community opt-out of crosspost functionality in this way

  • From what I recall, I believe that Reddit handles crossposts in a similar manner, that is, comments in one crosspost in one subreddit don't show in other crossposted subreddits.

    Like Blaze mentioned in another comment, one of the problems with putting all the comments together is that different communities have different rules, so a comment that would be fine in one community might get you in trouble in a different community. People already get confused by this as it is. If all the comments from different crossposts get aggregated in one place, I think it would cause complete confusion and more work for mods.

    What if upon cross-posting the default is separation, but a request is sent to the original community to request a comment tree merge?

    Then you don't have to share comment space with the tankies unless you wish it

    cc blaze@piefed.zip

  • Alternative suggestion - allow communities to block crossposting functionality with specified communities in the community settings.

  • Every instance should simply just stop thinking they should have their own version of X community.

    Doesn’t PieFed merge communities with the same name?

    Shall we keep memes on Beehaw or .ml?

  • As mentioned in another comment, as a mod there's not a lot of value mixing other comments I cannot mod about to the ones I can mod. Seems like an easy way to abuse the system and avoid moderation

  • the conversations should be combined

    Disagree. As OP points out, there is value in separating the discussions as well.

  • Different conversations in different moods and cultures on the same subject are something completely human and normal, and tech should not work to undo this. When we have seen tech undo this is with social media silos, after all.

    Which is to say, any "solution" that integrates those conversations into one view should be, where possible, client-side only. That way I can opt in to view some conversations as unified or not, depending on eg.: how well do I know the context, or whether the OP is a person known for cross-posting (and to where), while at the same time not forcing everyone else to have their culture of conversation subsumed into essentially an attempt to make topical subreddits.

    Finally someone who gets it. This "problem" is in fact a total non-issue. Different groups talk about the same thing all the time. This is good, not bad.

  • Fediverse projects are maturing and adoption of them is trending up. I'm excited for the further development of the underlying technologies as well as the apps being built to leverage those technologies into even more integrated, user-friendly experiences.

    With any developing tech, small annoyances are found and ultimately patched or worked around. It's to be expected that no user experience is ever perfect, even for matured ecosystems. Typically, some smaller annoyances are tolerated when balanced with the overall utility and usefulness of the tech.

    One of the issues I've noticed (and I'm sure I'm not the first or only), is that when posts are relevant enough that the OP decides to cross-post into multiple communities, the comments and engagement stays with each community post leading to separate conversations.

    The existance of separate conversations itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. Maybe you post a recipe for Pot Roast in a general cooking community and also a community that helps refine recipes to improve them. It may be that the two separate conversations make more sense as the nature of discourse is focused on two different aspects of the content posted. If they were combined, it would be more difficult to sift through chatter to get at the discussion you were looking for.

    This concept is true for different communities as well as different instances. Maybe the Pot Roast recipe conversation generated on lemmy.carnivores is substantly different from the conversation at lemmy.vegan-curious and the existance of both is bolstered by the cultures and seneabilities of the different instance/communities. That could create usefull and/or thoughtful discourse that maybe wouldn't have happened if everyone was mixed together and talking past each other.

    However, there are plenty of informative posts attached to very similar communities on a given instance as well as posted to mirror-communities across separate instances. Each individual post is a separate entity and i find myself jumping in to different conversations of the same content to see what's being said in each. In addition to general replies often asking the same questions across all of the posts, unique engagement is diffuse and not connecting.

    I imagine that an OP would have trouble keeping up with all of these different interactions and likely defaulting to paying their attention to only one or two while the remaining posts are left to fend for themselves. Even if the OP stayed on top of them all, I assume they'd often have to answer the same questions multiple times.

    _The question I pose is: _

    What is the solution to myriad and diffuse conversations around cross-posts? Is there a way to handle this situation thru lemmy-ettiquette or does it require a technological solution?

    Maybe we handle it thru culture and expectation. If the decided upon method was to post once and then link that post to other communities for exposure, maybe that funnels everyone into one post to interact (when that's what OP wants).

    Is there a software solution on the app developer level that combines like posts together? Is it a protocol level solution thats required? Maybe something that allows a single post to essentially 'tag' different communities for exposure, while only posting once? Can we associate posts to an individual user rather than associating the post to a community, so all replies come to the user post rather than in a community?

    I don't know what the solution looks like and I'm not savvy enough to understand the protocol/software side to know if any of my examples are realistic. I also don't know if this is an issue for anyone else, or at least one that lemmy-ites actuallly care about enough to try and solve.

    Does anyone know if work is being done to address this? Am I focusing on something that is simply not a priority? I welcome your thoughts.

    ...I tried to choose what I thought was the best place for this post, but I'm open to moving it if I was in error. (Ironically, something that might be easier if posts were handled differently). :)

    What about making crossposts look like a quote post? Reddit already does that.

  • Fediverse projects are maturing and adoption of them is trending up. I'm excited for the further development of the underlying technologies as well as the apps being built to leverage those technologies into even more integrated, user-friendly experiences.

    With any developing tech, small annoyances are found and ultimately patched or worked around. It's to be expected that no user experience is ever perfect, even for matured ecosystems. Typically, some smaller annoyances are tolerated when balanced with the overall utility and usefulness of the tech.

    One of the issues I've noticed (and I'm sure I'm not the first or only), is that when posts are relevant enough that the OP decides to cross-post into multiple communities, the comments and engagement stays with each community post leading to separate conversations.

    The existance of separate conversations itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. Maybe you post a recipe for Pot Roast in a general cooking community and also a community that helps refine recipes to improve them. It may be that the two separate conversations make more sense as the nature of discourse is focused on two different aspects of the content posted. If they were combined, it would be more difficult to sift through chatter to get at the discussion you were looking for.

    This concept is true for different communities as well as different instances. Maybe the Pot Roast recipe conversation generated on lemmy.carnivores is substantly different from the conversation at lemmy.vegan-curious and the existance of both is bolstered by the cultures and seneabilities of the different instance/communities. That could create usefull and/or thoughtful discourse that maybe wouldn't have happened if everyone was mixed together and talking past each other.

    However, there are plenty of informative posts attached to very similar communities on a given instance as well as posted to mirror-communities across separate instances. Each individual post is a separate entity and i find myself jumping in to different conversations of the same content to see what's being said in each. In addition to general replies often asking the same questions across all of the posts, unique engagement is diffuse and not connecting.

    I imagine that an OP would have trouble keeping up with all of these different interactions and likely defaulting to paying their attention to only one or two while the remaining posts are left to fend for themselves. Even if the OP stayed on top of them all, I assume they'd often have to answer the same questions multiple times.

    _The question I pose is: _

    What is the solution to myriad and diffuse conversations around cross-posts? Is there a way to handle this situation thru lemmy-ettiquette or does it require a technological solution?

    Maybe we handle it thru culture and expectation. If the decided upon method was to post once and then link that post to other communities for exposure, maybe that funnels everyone into one post to interact (when that's what OP wants).

    Is there a software solution on the app developer level that combines like posts together? Is it a protocol level solution thats required? Maybe something that allows a single post to essentially 'tag' different communities for exposure, while only posting once? Can we associate posts to an individual user rather than associating the post to a community, so all replies come to the user post rather than in a community?

    I don't know what the solution looks like and I'm not savvy enough to understand the protocol/software side to know if any of my examples are realistic. I also don't know if this is an issue for anyone else, or at least one that lemmy-ites actuallly care about enough to try and solve.

    Does anyone know if work is being done to address this? Am I focusing on something that is simply not a priority? I welcome your thoughts.

    ...I tried to choose what I thought was the best place for this post, but I'm open to moving it if I was in error. (Ironically, something that might be easier if posts were handled differently). :)

    What if a post was its own separate thing, detached from the communities. You then "attach" the post to one or more communities.

    When a user comments on a post, the comment "comes from community xyz" but all comments are attached to the post not the community.

    Lemmy applications can choose to filter comments from one or more communities or show them all.

  • Piefed groups comment boxes from crossposts into one post. So no matter which crosspost you're looking at, you'll see all responses.

    This kinda erodes cultural differences between different communities though. Different communities may have very different approaches on how to talk about a post. I feel like this approach just leads to monoculturism.

  • This kinda erodes cultural differences between different communities though. Different communities may have very different approaches on how to talk about a post. I feel like this approach just leads to monoculturism.

    I think you may be overestating the amount of crossposts that happen for the idea that it would somehow cause 'monoculturalism'


Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
  • I think there's definitely an underserved space for academics on the fediverse.

    Feed-based mechanics are not good for archival or slower (read: not always online) readers, so NodeBB actually works really well to collect that stuff and present it in less of a firehose-y format.

    For example, here's a NodeBB forum that follows the #medicine tag: https://postcall.pub

    Here on ActivityPub.Space the discussion is all ActivityPub focused and it is really really good at keeping up to date with the latest topics.

    I'd be happy to work with you to start a general science (or more topic-focused) board if you're interested...

    read more

  • you may also find a slack channel dedicated to your field.

    read more

  • I think a lot of them moved to bluesky

    facepalm

    read more

  • I think a lot of them moved to bluesky.

    Here, I would just hang out in the science communities and other relevant ones, post relevant things and follow people you're interested in.

    read more

  • Create/join communities in your field, on Mastodon follow the hashtags and most importantly feed them with posts even if no one answers or interacts, someday you’ll reach the audience you’re looking for

    read more

  • The academic meme community here is absolutely ace! But what I would also like is to communicate with other academics in my field and share the latest publication and talk about it a bit if possible with peers.

    I used to use Twitter (back when it was called Twitter) to post about my new publications. Now I use Mastodon.
    Say what you wish about the negative aspect of algorithm based feeds, I am currently finding it hard to connect with other academics whose profiles may be dispersed in the wide fediverse.

    Long story short: How do I disseminate my work and connect with other academic peers in my field on the fediverse?

    I'm study biosystems and circular economy.

    read more

  • Good on you Rimu. If NodeBB implements Activity Intents it'll be because of you.

    read more

  • There is a FEP for this - https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/3b86/fep-3b86.md it's not something dansup came up with originally. We'll see how close Pixelfed adheres to it.

    PieFed has implemented basic support for that FEP since August 2025 and I just added more today.

    read more
Post suggeriti
  • 0 Votes
    3 Posts
    25 Views
    @L_yah @elmine sadly no, I just had it made for FOSDEM but the supplier kept messing up the mockups so I won't be ordering from them again... if enough people are interested, maybe I'll set up a shop on bonfire.com (not the Fedi bonfire, but the apparel place)
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    13 Views
    I had the opportunity to attend FOSDEM 2026 virtually, and I spent almost all of my time in the [Social Web](https://fosdem.org/2026/schedule/track/social-web/) track. A few themes kept coming up across talks. Some were explicit, some were between the lines. Either way, they prompted a bunch of thoughts I wanted to capture. DISCLAIMER: AI was used to help me organize and improve the flow of this post. Ideas and thoughts expressed are my own. ## Hosting is hard In [*Building a sustainable Italian Fediverse: overcoming technical, adoption and moderation challenges*](https://fosdem.org/2026/schedule/event/VKHGXT-building_a_sustainable_italian_fediverse_overcoming_technical_adoption_and_moder/), there was a moment (not the main focus of the talk) where hosting came up in a way that really stuck with me. I’m paraphrasing, so apologies if I misrepresent anything, but the gist was: - Hosting Mastodon is hard, so we simplify with hosting services like Masto.Host - Hosting PixelFed and PeerTube is easier thanks to appliances like YunoHost Based on my own experience, that rings true, with some nuance. Getting Mastodon running isn’t actually the hardest part. The self-hosting docs are good enough in my opinion, and that’s how I originally stood up my instance at [toot.lqdev.tech](https://toot.lqdev.tech/@lqdev). I even maintain guides for [cleanup](https://lqdev.me/resources/wiki/mastodon-server-cleanup/) and [upgrades](/resources/wiki/mastodon-server-upgrades/) that largely mirror the official Mastodon documentation and release notes. The harder part is everything after provisioning. Mastodon (especially with federation enabled) can be resource-intensive, and that cost shows up fast even on a single-user instance. If I’m not staying on top of maintenance, disk fills up. Every few weeks, my instance will go down because I’ve run out of storage. Add database migrations, which can be error-prone, and you end up with a setup that’s straightforward to launch but expensive to operate. You pay in money for a big enough server, and you pay in time for ongoing maintenace. I still want to participate in the Fediverse, but I don’t want to keep paying the maintenance tax for Mastodon. That’s one of the reasons [I implemented ActivityPub on my static site](/notes/website-now-natively-posts-to-the-fediverse-2026-01-22/) instead. On the PixelFed side, I did try to self-host it once, and I couldn’t get it working cleanly from scratch. Some of that is on me (I’m not familiar with PHP), but either way, YunoHost was a lifesaver. With YunoHost, I had PixelFed up and running quickly, and what that ecosystem provides is genuinely impressive. That said, I also learned the “operations” lesson there too. During an upgrade, something went wrong with the database, it got corrupted, and I couldn’t restore from backup. I ultimately took the instance down. I’m willing to attribute that to user error, but it still reinforces the bigger point. The promise of federation and decentralization is that you can stand up your own node for yourself, your family, a school, a company, a city, even a government. In practice, that’s still too hard for most people unless they use appliances like YunoHost or managed hosting like Masto.Host. And yes, those options mean giving up some control. But even with that tradeoff, I’d argue it’s still better than centralized platforms. As someone fairly technical and a little extreme about owning the whole stack (I implemented my own static site generator, Webmentions service, and now ActivityPub), I still find this hard. I can’t imagine how unapproachable it feels if you’re not technical. I just wish it were simpler and more cost-effective to run these services without needing either deep system administration knowledge or active ongoing maintenance. ## One identity, many post types In the talk, [*How to level up the Fediverse*](https://fosdem.org/2026/schedule/event/HVJRNV-how_to_level_up_the_fediverse/), Christine and Jessica talked about ActivityPub implementations and touched on something that really resonated with me. The idea (again, paraphrasing) was that splitting content types by app (video goes to PeerTube, images go to PixelFed, microblogging goes to Mastodon) might not be the right long-term model. Instead, they suggested something closer to one place to publish and follow people, with rich post types handled in one identity and one experience. That immediately made me think about Tumblr. When I first heard [Tumblr was planning to implement ActivityPub](https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/21/tumblr-to-add-support-for-activitypub-the-social-protocol-powering-mastodon-and-other-apps/), I was excited because Tumblr is already “that kind of app.” You can publish videos, photos, polls, longer posts, and everything in between, all in one place. There was also talk about [moving Tumblr to WordPress](https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/28/tumblr-to-move-its-half-a-billion-blogs-to-wordpress/), which (in theory) could make ActivityPub integration even more powerful. But as of now, [Tumblr’s ActivityPub work seems to be paused](https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/01/automattic-puts-tumblr-migration-to-wordpress-on-hold/). The more I think about it, the more this model makes sense, especially because the most important part isn’t the “single app.” It’s the single identity. You should have one account where your content originates. Then people can consume it from different experiences. Maybe that is a video-focused client, maybe it is an image-first view, maybe it is a Mastodon-like timeline. The key is that you do not need separate accounts everywhere. That’s essentially how I think about my website. My site is my digital home and my identity. I post different content types which align with [IndieWeb post types](https://indieweb.org/posts#Types_of_Posts): - Articles - Notes - Responses (reposts, replies, likes) - Bookmarks - Media (photos and videos) - RSVPs People can follow via RSS. And more recently, I implemented my own ActivityPub support so my posts generate native ActivityPub activities. That means Mastodon and other clients can follow and interact with my site directly. What I like about this is that it decouples publishing from consumption. I choose where I publish (my site). Others choose how they consume (their client). The protocols handle the translation. ## The web is already social and decentralized In Social Web conversations, sometimes the tone implies the "social web" is separate from "the web". I don't really buy that. The web is social because people are on it. People use it to learn, create, find community, do commerce, argue, collaborate, share memes, and everything else. The web is also decentralized by default. That's the baseline architecture. Dave Winer recently wrote about software being ["of the web"](http://scripting.com/2025/11/24/141418.html). Software that's built to share data, accept input, produce output, and let users move their data. Not locked into silos. This is why I'm so bullish on a different architectural approach: **start as a website, add social capabilities as components.** People are already using WordPress, Ghost, and Micro.blog to build sites. With an ActivityPub plugin, your existing web presence becomes followable and interactive in the Fediverse. The site remains a site. It just gets socially interoperable. Bridgy Fed reinforces this. It takes what already exists on the web and helps it participate in social protocols, without forcing you to rebuild as a native social app first. That's also my own setup. My website worked as a publishing platform and people could follow via RSS. When I implemented ActivityPub, it became progressively enhanced. Same posts, new social vocabulary. I didn't have to abandon my site. I just made it speak the social language. ## Modular and extensible feels like the right direction This is the architectural vision I took away from Bonfire: [Building Modular, Consentful, and Federated Social Networks](https://fosdem.org/2026/schedule/event/3QHALR-bonfire_building_modular_consentful_and_federated_social_networks/). The "opt-in pieces" approach is about choosing which parts you want, evolving your experience based on what you enable. It echoes [small pieces loosely joined](http://scripting.com/2026/01/30/140150.html). It's a practical model for a federated future: - Start with the basic web - Add social capabilities as components - Get progressively more powerful as you opt in Your site still works normally. When you speak the lingua franca of protocols like ActivityPub, you can express social intent in a way other systems understand. So it's not "the web vs the social web." It's the web, with richer native social vocabulary. ## Conclusion This probably reads like I’m nitpicking, but I’m genuinely bullish on federated and decentralized networks. That’s why I’m still participating. What stood out to me at FOSDEM this year is momentum. Last year, the Social Web track was a half day. This year, it expanded to a full day. That signals to me that there are a lot of smart, passionate people working across protocol design, UX, moderation, policy, community, activism, and implementation, trying to build real alternatives to entrenched silos. And the plurality of implementations is a strength. It encourages exploration, competition, and innovation. My hope is that the “end state” isn’t a separate social web you have to join. It’s a web that continues to work as expected, but gets progressively enhanced when you opt into interoperable social protocols. Ultimately, there isn’t “the web” and “the social web.” There's just the web, and social vocabularies that participants can adopt without thinking about it.
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    12 Views
    Are you in #tech and running your own #Fediverse instance? You might want to join an Activity Pub relay instance!My relay at https://fedi-relay.gyptazy.com has currently 139 instances connected, mostly tech related sharing the same mindset and interests like #Linux, #BSD, #Ansible, #Proxmox, #Coding, and many more! You can easily join from your instance when using #Pleroma, #snac (#snac2), #Mastodon and its forks 🙂#fedi #fediworld #fedicommunity #community #FreeBSD #OpenBSD #NetBSD #homelab #Python #Debian #RockyLinux #Feditips
  • 0 Votes
    9 Posts
    62 Views
    @reiver @trwnh @thisismissem ...- Demonstrated implementation by at least two (2) independent publishers.- Demonstrated implementation by at least two (2) independent consumers.