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 23 120
  • 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). :)

  • 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). :)

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

  • 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). :)

    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.

  • 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). :)

    Is there a software solution on the app developer level that combines like posts together?

    As mentioned in this thread already, piefed consolidates all the comments for crossposts when it detects them. As an example, you can look at this post on piefed.social. The link I shared is for the post on !news@lemmy.world, but below it you can see comments from the same article posted in !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk as well as !world@lemmy.world in their own sections as you keep scrolling. So, problem solved, right? Well...

    One of the key phrases I used above is "when it detects them". So, how does piefed detect crossposts? The answer is pretty simple, it basically just looks for other posts that point to the same destination url. In the example I linked, that would be the Guardian article that is being discussed. This is the same way that lemmy detects crossposts. This approach is nice and easy and computationally cheap on the database (quick), however, there is a big shortfall of this method...posts that don't point to a url (discussion posts) can never be detected as crossposts. Lemmy offers the ability to hit the crosspost button on a discussion post and it will create a big block quote of the original post for you, but it isn't actually recognized as a crosspost in the software.

    I don't have a good technical solution to be able to make discussion posts (and other non-url posts, like piefed events or polls) be crossposted properly. It likely would need to be tracked in the database somehow, but it would rely on users somehow indicating that the post they are making is meant to be a crosspost. I don't know really...

    Anyway, that is the current state of crossposts. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

  • 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 I think would be interesting would be to have communities be tags rather than exclusive categories. So if you make a post, you can add more than one tag to it, provided you are a 'member' of those tags.

    Tags would have moderators much like communities have moderators now, to preserve the meaning of the tag. So you could have a tag like 'billionaire media', and members could slap that tag on all nyt, wapo, etc articles. Moderators would boot members who misapplied the tag.

    Then what would be interesting would be to use the tags for searches, like 'news' minus 'billiionaire media'.

    Pretty significant changes from what lemmy is today, so would be either a fork of lemmy or a from scratch new program.

  • What I think would be interesting would be to have communities be tags rather than exclusive categories. So if you make a post, you can add more than one tag to it, provided you are a 'member' of those tags.

    Tags would have moderators much like communities have moderators now, to preserve the meaning of the tag. So you could have a tag like 'billionaire media', and members could slap that tag on all nyt, wapo, etc articles. Moderators would boot members who misapplied the tag.

    Then what would be interesting would be to use the tags for searches, like 'news' minus 'billiionaire media'.

    Pretty significant changes from what lemmy is today, so would be either a fork of lemmy or a from scratch new program.

    It's a viable model, but it's not the Lemmy model, because that's a clone of the reddit model. I don't know if that's implemented anywhere though.

  • 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). :)

    everyone said PieFed, but Lemmy v1.0 will be improving this a bit too

    You can see it lists the crossposts showing how many comments and upvotes each has

    The Boost app does a pretty decent job of this too already

    https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-ui/pull/3387

  • 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). :)

    The solution has been, for decades, to dump the WWW and continue the Memex-Dynabook-Xanadu line of development where everything related is webbed together by default.

    The sick sad history of computer-aided collaboration
    https://www.quora.com/Who-invented-the-modern-computer-look-and-feel/answer/Harri-K-Hiltunen
    (long story)

  • 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). :)

    Yes. It is being worked on, and you are not far off.

    Respondents here have mentioned that Piefed and Lemmy list cross-posts in places, sometimes in the community listing, sometimes in the post itself.

    That's missing the point, which is that the conversations should be combined.

    Take it a step further, though. You shouldn't have to combine posts, they should all be the same post.

    So how do we get there? Both Piefed and Lemmy do this internally, and don't expose this to other instances. NodeBB (aka me) is hoping to explore this question and put in the protocol research to make this a reality. I'll be working together with members of the Forum and Threaded Discussions Working Group about these things. (forum-wg@community.nodebb.org)

    The issue (as usual) is buy-in from Lemmy and Piefed (and don't forget mbin!) We all have to move in lockstep so that nobody gets left behind.

    We've only just started discussions on how this might work, but hopefully we'll be able to make this a reality soon.

  • Is there a software solution on the app developer level that combines like posts together?

    As mentioned in this thread already, piefed consolidates all the comments for crossposts when it detects them. As an example, you can look at this post on piefed.social. The link I shared is for the post on !news@lemmy.world, but below it you can see comments from the same article posted in !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk as well as !world@lemmy.world in their own sections as you keep scrolling. So, problem solved, right? Well...

    One of the key phrases I used above is "when it detects them". So, how does piefed detect crossposts? The answer is pretty simple, it basically just looks for other posts that point to the same destination url. In the example I linked, that would be the Guardian article that is being discussed. This is the same way that lemmy detects crossposts. This approach is nice and easy and computationally cheap on the database (quick), however, there is a big shortfall of this method...posts that don't point to a url (discussion posts) can never be detected as crossposts. Lemmy offers the ability to hit the crosspost button on a discussion post and it will create a big block quote of the original post for you, but it isn't actually recognized as a crosspost in the software.

    I don't have a good technical solution to be able to make discussion posts (and other non-url posts, like piefed events or polls) be crossposted properly. It likely would need to be tracked in the database somehow, but it would rely on users somehow indicating that the post they are making is meant to be a crosspost. I don't know really...

    Anyway, that is the current state of crossposts. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

    This one of the great features of Piefed!

  • 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.

    This is also how I feel.

    Getting different perspectives from different circles instead of being migrated to one dominant website culture is a big part of why I haven’t moved to piefed, since it seems like that semi-forced centralization is part of their vision.

  • Take it a step further, though. You shouldn't have to combine posts, they should all be the same post.

    Can you elaborate?

  • How does moderation work in this case?

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

  • This is also how I feel.

    Getting different perspectives from different circles instead of being migrated to one dominant website culture is a big part of why I haven’t moved to piefed, since it seems like that semi-forced centralization is part of their vision.

    Getting different perspectives from different circles instead of being migrated to one dominant website culture is a big part of why I haven’t moved to piefed, since it seems like that semi-forced centralization is part of their vision.

    Have you used Piefed and its multi-community comment system? I am asking because from using it, I don't the impression of "being migrated to one dominant website culture".

  • 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). :)

    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?

  • 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?

    @meldrik @BorisBoreUs Piefed can do that now?

  • I think it shows other comments, if the posts is crossposted.

  • 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?


Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
  • > If it's some automated feature, I don't think it should be in the source property of the federated JSON in the first place.

    Thanks, it's this.

    Edit: oh interesting, I looked into it. We serve the absolute URL in HTML but not in markdown. I had no idea threadiverse apps read the markdown. Neat!

    read more

  • Not sure if you're already aware, but that relative link there is broken in Lemmy, Mbin, and Piefed.

    If you used it manually, I'd suggest not using relative links in posts targeted at users from software that hasn't implemented them yet.

    If it's some automated feature, I don't think it should be in the source property of the federated JSON in the first place.

    read more

  • @rekall_incorporated@piefed.social said in [Fediverse wide cross-instance / cross-platform link substitution [UX improvement thoughts]](/post/https%3A%2F%2Fpiefed.social%2Fc%2Ffediverse%2Fp%2F1568622%2Ffediverse-wide-cross-instance-cross-platform-link-substitution-ux-improvement-thoughts):
    > This issue is unresolved in Lemmy, but the Lemmy brand is permanently tainted among users who are looking for alternatives to American oligarchic technology services. The low moral standards of the Lemmy devs' (support for the brutal North Korean regime, promotion of russian propaganda narratives that they know are false) is a massive turn off for the exact target market of the Fediverse. It's a fact that many Europeans looking for alternatives instinctively recognize the demagoguery of the Lemmy devs and their fans.

    I don't think this is true at all.

    The average user doesn't know what Lemmy is, let alone the political views of their core development team.

    But don't worry, it's like that joke about vegans:

    How do you know the Lemmy devs are politically dubious? Don't worry, someone on the threadiverse will tell you.

    read more

  • How the links act is different from client to client. If you click the link in the Lemmy web UI, it will take you directly to Lemmy.wtf, but if you used Voyager (iOS client), it will automatically redirect to your own instance.

    This is something that should be built into the Lemmy web UI.

    You can also use browser addons. I have an addon that redirects me to my own instance, if I click on a link in my browser. I also have an addon that takes me from YouTube to Peertube, if the video also exist in PeerTube or if I click a PeerTube link, it takes me to my instance.

    Also how dare you criticise the awesome TLD .wtf, which is clearly an abbreviation of “What The Fediverse”?!

    read more

  • I've seen that being used. It works fine for more technical users, but it's just an extra pain point.

    If you make links, you need to apply the service Different UI from whatever instance/client/platform that you are using.

    I much prefer Piefed's soon to be released link substitution feature.

    read more

  • Mbin has had that feature for a while too

    read more

  • It's a temporary workaround but the experience is still clunky

    read more

  • Well; atleast for lemmy, there's https://lemmyverse.link/ ; which fixes exactly what you mention. You send that link, other people choose their instance in the redirect, and boom!

    read more
Post suggeriti
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    7 Views
    When someone quote-boosts one of my Mastodon toots why do I get two identical notifications? One for the quote and the other for the boost? I use the web client of an instance that runs Mastodon Glitch Edition.#mastodon #fediverse
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    16 Views
    It took a few days for instances to be upgraded and admins to fill in their profiles but it's looking much healthier now! https://piefed.social/auth/instance_chooser
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    9 Views
    大家好,#Fread 现在已经决定开源了,欢迎大家查看代码提交 PR。Fread 经历了两年多的开发,从开始到现在一直免费使用,之前由于没考虑好到底是付费下载还是免费所以闭源,仓库里也有很多敏感数据一直没法开源,现在主要功能都开发的差不多了,也是时候开源出来了。虽然这种项目大部分都是业务代码,但是 Fread 还是有些独特之处的,首先使用的是 Kotlin Multiplatform 和 Compose Multiplatform 做跨平台,目前像 Fread 这么复杂的产品使用这样技术栈的其实很少,并且这是比较新的技术,这点 Fread 有很多参考意义。另外 Fread 因为要兼容多个社交平台以及混合 Feeds,所以架构设计上下了点功夫,目前可以从架构上兼容这些短博客协议。总之,虽然确实希望通过 Fread 赚钱,但我更希望自己开发了这么久的 App 有更多的人使用和喜欢。#Mastodon #Bluesky #rss #activitypub #fediverse #FOSS #Android #Opensource #Freesoftware @board@ovo.st @board@2-5.cc @worldboard@ovo.st @worldboard@2-5.cc https://github.com/0xZhangKe/Fread
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    5 Views
    Offentlige virksomheter bør eie egen publiseringskanal Sosiale medier som twitter har vært en populær og lett tilgjengelig publiseringsplatform for ting som værmeldinger og trafikkmeldinger og oppdateringer fra politiet. Sosiale medier har også vært en fin måte for radioprogrammmer og TV-programmer som går live til å få reakskjoner og innspill fra lyttere/seere inn i programmet i sanntid. Sosiale medier har vært en ypperlig måte for journalister til å kontakte kilder og få tips. Sosiale meldinger har vært en måte for politikere å ha direkte kontakt med sine velgere og å snakke direkte til de samme velgerne. Men så har det dukket opp problemer med bruk av sosiale medier. De sosiale mediene kostet i utgangspunktet ingenting å bruke. Men ingenting er gratis, noen måtte betale for kostnadene med å holde serverene i drift. Det som nå betaler for de “gratis” sosiale mediene, er at personer som har lagt inn informasjon de er avhengig av og knyttet kontakter de er avhengige av, betaler indirekte med å bli et produkt til de som skreddersyr reklame. Et annet problem er at man kan bli sensurert på måter som virker helt vilkårlig, uten mulighet til å finne ut hvorfor man blir sensurert eller mulighet til gjøre noe med det. Og… så kan et sosialt medium bli kjøpt av en milliardær med en agenda som ikke passer med et liberalt demokrati og en tolking av ytringsfrihet som er at alle som er enig med ham kan si det de vil, mens de som mener noe annet enn ham blir straffet. Spørsmål som har blitt stilt er: hvorfor finnes det noe åpen kildekode-alternativ? Hvorfor er det ingen informasjonskanal som de som publiserer kan eie sjøl? Svar på første spørsmål er at det finnes ikke bare ett åpen kildekode-alternativ, det finnes mange. Svar på andre spørsmål er at det finnes en sånn informasjonskanal og at den heter “ActivityPub“. ActivityPub binder sammen tjenester som blandt annet mastodon og pixelfed og har eksistert siden 2018. Hva er ActivityPub Så: Hva er ActivityPub? ActivityPub er en nettverksprotokoll som brukes til meldingsutveksling over internett. ActivityPub er definert som et sett av standarder av W3C ActivityPub W3C Recommendation 23 January 2018Activity Streams 2.0 W3C Recommendation 23 May 2017 (beskriver formatet for meldingene som sendes over ActivityPub)Activity Vocabulary W3C Recommendation 23 May 2017 (lister et vokabular for bruk i ActivityPub/Activity streams) Rent teknisk så består ActivityPub av JSON over HTTP. JSON’en er JSON-LD og id til JSON-elementene er navigerbare HTTPS-URLer som peker på elementene, så ActivityPub danner faktisk et semantisk web (uten at jeg, eller noen andre jeg har sett så langt, vet hvordan denne egenskapen skal utnyttes til noe praktisk… men: artig å vite!). ActivityPub knytter mange tjenester sammen Jeg selv bruker 4 forskjellige tjenester som er knyttet sammen med ActivityPub mastodon, som er et sosialt medium av type “mikroblog“, som minner om twitter (eller “X” som noen insisterer på å kalle det idag)pixelfed, som er et sosialt medium lagd for å utveksle bilder (minner litt om instagram, men uten algoritmer og notifikasjoner)wordpress, som er en bloggeplatformbookwyrm, som er en åpen kildekode-tjeneste for bokanmeldelser, et alternativ til Amazons goodreads Jeg bruker mastodon som en slags hub mellom de andre tre tjenstene. En kamerat av meg karakteriserte mastodon som “USENET med bilder” og det var egentlig ganske treffende (for oss som husker USENET). Mastodon likner på twitter i utseende og oppførsel, men det er to klare forskjeller: Det er ikke bare én server for mastodon, dvs. det er ikke bare at man bytter ut twitter.com med mastodon.social. Man kan spinne opp sin egen server og starte å følge folk på andre servere og så begynner trafikk å flyte innDet er ingen algoritmer. Meldinger som kommer i feeden din kommer enten fraPostinger fra andre folk du følger (disse kan komme fra andre servere)Hashtagger du følger (her ser du bare meldinger med denne hashtaggen som havner på samme server som du er på) Merk: det at mastodon eller pixelfed ikke har algoritmer er ikke en egenskap som blir diktert av ActivityPub. Det å ikke ha algoritmer til å styre brukernes feed, er et aktivt valg gjort av utviklerene back mastodon og pixelfed. Metas Threads, som også støtter (til en viss grad) ActivityPub, omfavner algoritmer. Hvordan flyter trafikk i ActivityPub En ting jeg lenge lurte på, var: hvordan fungerer egentlig denne “federeringen“…? Hvordan er det postinger flyter rundt i fediverset? Den enkleste måten å forklare er å bruke et eksempel. Eksempelet er at noen, meg i dette tilfellet, setter opp en egen mastodon-server mastodon.bang.priv.no. Når jeg setter opp og starter mastodon.bang.priv.no så sitter serveren bare der uten noen artikler og uten noen brukere. Den sender ingenting og mottar ingenting. Så lager jeg brukeren @steinarb på serveren og det går fortsatt ingen trafikk ut og inn. Bruker @steinarb poster en artikkel. Siden @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no ikke har noen følgere så kommer ikke artikkelen lengre enn mastodon.bang.priv.no. Så bestemmer @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no seg for å følge @Gargron@mastodon.social (dvs. grunnleggeren av mastodon) mastodon.social.bang.priv.no gjør et WebFinger-kall til mastodon.social for å finne konto-URLen til @Gargron@mastodon.social (“self” i responsen fra WebFinger) { "links": [ { "rel": "self", "type": "application/activity+json", "href": "https://mastodon.social/users/Gargron" } ]} Merk: bruk av WebFinger går utenfor ActivityPub, å bruke WebFinger for å få tak i brukerinfo er noe mastodon har begynt å gjøre og er oppførsel kopiert av andre fediverse-tjenster. Eugen Rochkos bloggpost fra 23. juni 2018 How to implement a basic ActivityPub server beskriver bruk av WebFinger for å identifisere en følger og det er eneste beskrivelse jeg har funnet av WebFinger sammen med en ActivityPub-server Konto-URLen til @Gargron@mastodon.social returnerer JSON-LD for kontoen som inneholder bla innboks og offentlig krypteringsnøkkel { "@context": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", "https://w3id.org/security/v1" ], "id": "https://mastodon.social/users/Gargron", "type": "Person", "preferredUsername": "Gargron", "name": "Eugen Rochko", "following": "https://mastodon.social/users/Gargron/following", "followers": "https://mastodon.social/users/Gargron/followers", "outbox": "https://mastodon.social/users/Gargron/outbox", "inbox": "https://mastodon.social/users/Gargron/inbox", "publicKey": { "id": "https://mastodon.social/users/Gargron#main-key", "owner": "https://mastodon.social/users/Gargron", "publicKeyPem": "-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----\nMIIB...DAQAB\n-----END PUBLIC KEY-----\n" }} Merk: Feltet id inneholder en URL som er samme URL som ble brukt til å laste JSON’en over, dvs. “self reference” (dette er et SHOULD-krav i standarden) @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no gjør en HTTPS POST av ActivityPub Follow til innboksen til @Gargron@mastodon.social (dvs. https://mastodon.social/users/Gargron/inbox) { "@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", "type": "Follow", "id": "https://mastodon.bang.priv.no/users/steinarb/outbox/123456789" "actor": "https://mastodon.bang.priv.no/users/steinarb", "object": "https://mastodon.social/users/Gargron"}Returverdien på HTTP POST av Follow er bare en kvittering på avlevert melding til innboksen, resten fortsetter asynkrontmastodon.social sjekker at “object” matcher id på en lokal brukermastodon.social gjør så en HTTPS GET til URLen i “actor” og forventer der å finne en profil av liknende type som resultatet fra “self” overmastodon.social sjekker at returnert JSON-LD fra “actor” URL inneholder en inboxmastodon.social sjekker at Signature-header på HTTPS POST-operasjonen som legger Follow-meldingen i https://mastodon.social/users/Gargron/inbox, matcher publicKey i returnert JSON-LD fra “actor” URL mastodon.social gjør en HTTPS POST til innboksen til @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no med en Accept (kunne vært en Reject…) { "@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", "type": "Accept", "actor": "https://mastodon.social/users/Gargron", "object": "https://mastodon.bang.priv.no/users/steinarb/outbox/123456789"}mastodon.bang.priv.no svarer på HTTPS POST med en kvittering av mottatt melding og fortsetter asynkrontmastodon.bang.priv.no bruker id til å slå opp profil og finner ut at dette er en profil den allerede har lastetSiden mastodon.bang.priv.no tidligere har lastet ned profil-JSON’en til @Gargron@mastodon.social har den allerede publicKey for kontoen og kan sjekke Signature-header på HTTPS POSTI tillegg kommer id til Follow-forespørslen dette er en Accept av, som kan sjekkes om samstemmer med en forespørsel som serveren tidligere har sendtDersom alt er oppfylt, så vil mastodon.bang.priv.no legge @Gargron@mastodon.social inn i lista over kontoer som @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no følger Etter at denne runddansen er over så har @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no blitt med i følgerlista til @Gargron@mastodon.social og @Gargron@mastodon.social har blitt med i lista over kontoer som @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no følger. Når @Gargron@mastodon.social poster en melding, så går mastodon.social gjennom følgerlista til @Gargron@mastodon.social. En av følgerne er @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no, så derfor tar mastodon.social kontakt med mastodon.bang.priv.no og legger meldingen inn i innboksen til @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no. Serveren mastodon.bang.priv.no sjekker at det som kommer inn i innboksen til @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no har en Signature-header som matcher “publicKey” i profilen til @Gargron@mastodon.social og dersom de matcher, slippe meldingen gjennom. Nå har en posting kommet inn fra utsida, så nå har det blitt trafikk inn på mastodon.bang.priv.no. I framtida vil alle postingene @Gargron@mastodon.social legger ut komme inn på mastodon.bang.priv.no. Alle postingene @Gargron@mastodon.social bestemmer seg for å booste vil også komme inn på mastodon.bang.priv.no. Postingene fra @Gargron@mastodon.social vi også bli synlige for eventuelle andre brukere på mastodon.bang.priv.no og dersom postingen inneholder en hashtag som følges av andre brukere, f.eks. #norsktut, så vil meldingen dukke opp i feeden til andre brukere på mastodon.bang.priv.no som følger hashtaggen. Hvis mastodon.bang.priv.no skulle være nede eller utilgjengelig når @Gargron@mastodon.social poster en melding, så vil meldingen aldri komme i feeden til @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no. At man godtar at man kanskje mister en posting nå og da, fjerner mye kompleksitet fra serverene. Dersom @Gargron@mastodon.social ser at han blir fulgt av @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no og bestemmer seg for å følge tilbake, så vil samme verifiseringen som over skje i motsatt retning og nye postinger fra @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no vil havne i feeden til @Gargron@mastodon.social (og være potensielt synlig for alle andre brukere på mastodon.social). Men artikkelen @steinarb@mastodon.bang.priv.no postet før han hadde noen følgere, vil ikke være synlig for @Gargron@mastodon.social for den artikkelen kom seg aldri av mastodon.bang.priv.no. Bruken av nøkler som matcher URLene posterne sier at de kommer fra gjør at selv om man ikke vet hvem som er i hver ende, så kan man anta at de hører hjemme på de serverene de sier at de kommer fra. Dette er som regel “godt nok”. Hvordan er det med spam Det er fort å tenke at dersom alle kan sette opp sin egen server så vil det være lett for spammere å sette opp egne servere og hamre løs med spam inn i fediverset. Men det tar tid å sette opp en server og starte å federere trafikk. Du trenger at noen følger deg for at du skal kunne sende trafikk ut fra egen server. Ikke minst: de som skal se meldingene dine må følge deg. Og det tar kort tid for de store instansene å stenge for servere som driver med spamming. Mastodon-programvaren har en del innebygde mekanismer for å utelukke postere og servere. Så distribuert-biten er mindre sårbar for spam enn jeg fryktet. Jeg har ikke opplevd veldig mye spam i fediverset. Andre har opplevd mer: What’s with the spam on Mastodon? (Kevin’s blog <2025-09-17 Wed>)Why is Spam on Mastodon Such a Heated Topic? (Caleb Hart blog <2023-05-15 Mon>) Jeg har ennå ikke opplevd en eneste spam-melding direkte inn i feeden min. Kanskje fordi jeg ikke drar inn “new on server” inn i feeden min? Eller lytter på hashtagger som spammerne bruker? I forrige uke så jeg de to første spam/phishing-artiklene jeg har sett på mastodon. De lå ikke på toppnivå, de kom som kommentarer på postinger så de ble ikke vist før jeg så hele tråden under postingene. Jeg rapporterte begge og de er borte nå. Første opplevelsen av mastodon da jeg kom fra twitter var at det var mye mindre spam enn der jeg kom fra. Og ikke minst: mye mindre “lovlig” reklame (som i ingenting). Men siden har det dukket opp dodgy følgere av samme type som dukket opp mye på slutten på twitter og gjerne lagd samme dag og som følger mange andre profiler og har ingen egne postinger. Profilene har stort sett forsvunnet rett etterpå. Spam-profiler som jeg har sett har vært på de store instansene (f.eks. mastodon.social). Spam-profilene har vært av to typer: Helt nylagde brukere som følger mange og som blir fulgt av ingen egne brukere og uten egne postinger (opprettet av bot-farmer styrt av spammere eller trollfabrikker). Disse forsvinner oftest etter kort tidBrukere som ser legitime ut men som tydeligvis ble lagd på tida Musk kjøpte twitter (2022) og ble såvidt prøvd ut da og siden ikke har vært i bruk Det har blitt mindre av den første typen fordi mastodon-programvaren nå blir distribuert med of åpen registrering disablet som default. Og de store instansene har blitt bedre på å beskytte seg selv. Usikker på hva som skjer med kaprede profiler. Hvordan jeg bruker mastodon som hub for mine ActivityPub-tjenester Jeg har, som nevnt over, følgende tjenester som støtter ActivityPub: Mastodon: @steinarb@mastodon.socialPixelfed: @steinarb@pixelfed.socialWordPress: @steinar.bang.priv.no@steinar.bang.priv.noBookwyrm: @steinarb@bookwyrm.social Jeg har latt @steinarb@mastodon.social følge kontoene @steinarb@pixelfed.social, @steinar.bang.priv.no@steinar.bang.priv.no og @steinarb@bookwyrm.social. Jeg lar @steinarb@mastodon.social booste alle postinger som kommer fra de andre kontoene, noe som betyr at all som følger @steinarb@mastodon.social også får postinger fra de andre, mer spesialiserte, kontoene mine i feeden sin. Hvordan blir innhold fra andre tjenester vist i mastodon Mastodon er en mikrobloggetjeneste som minner om twitter (som det var før det ble ødelagt av trollbots og reklame). Mastodon tillater flere tegn pr post enn twitter gjorde (mastodon tillater som default 500 tegn, mens twitter tillater 280 tegn), tillater opp til 4 bilder (eller annet medieinnhold) pr post og dersom man legger på en URL så vil mastodon se etter OpenGraph-informasjon på URLen og bruke OpenGraph-informasjonen (tittel, beskrivelse, bilde) til å lage et preview av URLen i posten. Pixelfed er en bilde- og videodelingstjeneste ala Instagram. Jeg har aldri postet en eneste video der, men jeg poster enkelt-bilder og slideshow. Slideshow’ene kan inneholde opp til 12 bilder. Jeg følger pixelfed-kontoen min fra mastodon-kontoen min. Det betyr at alt jeg poster på pixelfed-kontoen dukker opp i feeden til mastodon-kontoen min. Figure 1: Et slideshow i pixelfed (til venstre) og samme slideshow vist som en mastodon-posting (til høyre) Enkeltbilder vises omtrent på samme måte som på pixelfed, men slideshow blir nedgradert til de 4 første bildene. I tillegg er det en lenke tilbake til web-versjonen av pixelfed-postingen. Pixelfed har mulighet til å kommentere på postinger og like postinger og fremheve postinger, på linje med det man kan gjøre i mastodon. Men mulighetene er begrensede i forhold til det man kan gjøre i mastodon. Pixelfed er først og fremst et sted du kan publisere bilder og der du kan se andres bilder. WordPress er en blogg-platform. Med ActivityPub plugin aktivert på bloggen min (wordpress.com info om ActivityPub plugin) så ble bloggen synlig som en activitypub-profil (dvs. brukerkonto), som jeg så kunne følge fra mastodon-kontoen min. I mastodon-feeden blir poster vist som full lengde tekst og med opp til 4 av eventuelle bilder på bloggen. Dvs. mastodon viser mer (av og til betydelig mer) enn de 500 tegnene mastodon selv tillater. Det er også mer formatering i bloggteksten fra wordpress, enn det mastodon legger opp til på sine egne postinger. Dersom noen som får bloggposten i mastodon-feeden sin, svarer på posten, så kommer svaret som en kommentar inn i wordpress-bloggen. Dersom noen som får bloggposten i mastodon-feeden sin merker den som favoritt, så kommer det tilbake til wordpress-bloggen som en “like”. Figure 2: En wordpress bloggposting vist i wordpress (til venstre) og samme bloggpost vist i mastodon (til venstre) Den siste tjenesten jeg bruker som støtter ActivityPub, er bookwyrm. Bookwyrm er en åpen kildekode-erstatning for Amazons goodreads. Dvs. et sted der man kan finne og lage anmeldelser på bøker. Koblingen til ActivityPub er at man kan spore endringer man gjør i forhold til bøker, som postinger på ActivityPub. Eksempel på endringer som kan publiseres på ActivityPub Wants to read: blir postet når man legger bøker inn i bokhylla (jeg bruker å poste en sånn når jeg kjøper ei ny bok)Starting to read: blir postet når man registrerer at man starter å lese ei bokFinished reading blir postet når man er ferdig med ei bok. Her pleier jeg å legge en liten anmeldelse av boka Akkurat som pixelfed så har bookwyrm en feed der man kan lese kommentarer på egne kommentarer og følge postinger fra andre. Akkurat som pixelfed, så er bookwyrms muligheter for å følge og respondere postinger begrensede i forhold til det som man kan gjøre i mastodon. Bookwyrm er først og fremst et sted til å finne og lage informasjon om bøker (anmeldelser og kommentarer og bibliografisk informasjon). Figure 3: Starte lesing av ei bok vist i bookwyrm (til venstre) og samme starting av lesing vist som en mastodon-posting (til høyre)Hvor stort er egentlig fediverset? Her er det jeg har klart å oppdrive av statistikk på fediverset: https://fediverse.observer/stats lister9.4 millioner brukerkontoer på mastodon17.3 millioner brukerkontoer totalt i fediverset pr. november 20252.3 milliober brukerkontoer som har vært aktive i løpet av siste halvår før november 2025923 tusen brukerkontoer som har vært aktive i løpet av siste måned før november 2025https://fediverse.party/en/fediverse/ lister13.7 millioner brukerkontoer2.2 millioner aktive brukerkontoer Begge stedene inneholder estimater. Stedet de to ser ut til å være enige om estimatene er på aktive brukere (brukere som har vært aktive i løpet av siste halvår) og det er på ca 2.2 millioner. Hvis vi sammenlikner med twitter, Threads og bluesky: TjenesteMånedlig aktive brukereDaglig aktive brukereKildetwitter (X)557 millioner DemandSageThreads400 millioner115 millionerDemandSageBlueSky 3.5 millionerbacklinko Så de “gamle” tjenestene er 100-gangen større enn hele fediverset. Men spesielt twitter er belemret med spambots og sockpuppets sånn at det er usikkert av hvor mange ekte mennesker som er bak kontoene. Threads er ikke så gammel men den fikk masse brukere “gratis” fra andre Meta-tjenester i oppstarten. Det som kommer nærmest i størrelse er BlueSky. Egentlig er jeg litt forbauset over at BlueSky og fediverset tilsynelatende er så nærme i størrelse for jeg har sett at en del kjente folk som jeg har fulgt på mastodon annonserte at de dro over til BlueSky for et halvårs tid sia. Hva med Threads og fediverset? Threads støtter faktisk (til en viss grad) ActivityPub-protokollen. Jeg følger mange personer jeg tidligere fulgte på twitter ved å følge threads-kontoene deres på mastodon. Men: Threads-kontoer blir ikke automatisk tilgjengelige på ActivityPubDet er ganske vanskelig å finne ut hvordan man skal slå på ActivityPub på en Threads-kontoKontoer i EU-området er ekskludert fra ActivityPub (Meta påberoper seg GDPR som årsak, noe som virker sutrete og passivt-aggresivt i mine øyne)Jeg har aldri fått noen respons tilbake fra et svar på posting til en threads-konto eller posting jeg har gjort til en bruker på en threads-konto. Men jeg vet ikke om det skyldes at postingene mine ikke flyter over til threads, eller om det bare er at jeg forsvinner i støyenThreads tillater kun fediverse-trafikk fra mastodon og kun fra utvalgte servereHva med Bluesky? Er ikke Bluesky også distribuert? Bluesky påstår at det er et distribuert system og sjefsutvikleren på Bluesky har en lang utledning om hvorfor ActivityPub ikke duger som protokoll og at BlueSky derfor har sin egen protokoll. Det finnes broer mellom bluesky og fediverset. Jeg følger flere brukere fra bluesky på min mastodon-konto og får postinger fra dem inn i feeden min. Men i likhet med Threads så aner jeg ikke om svarene og likes’ene mine kommer tilbake til bluesky. Jeg har aldri fått noen respons derfra, men vet ikke om det er fordi mine svar aldri kommer dit eller om de bare forsvinner i støyene. Min mening: dersom man er på jakt etter en erstatning for twitter som ikke er eid og kontrollert av storkapitalen så er ikke BlueSky stedet å gå. For bluesky er ikke der ennå, men det er definitivt dit de ønsker seg. Hvorfor er ikke mastodon like populært som Threads og Bluesky? Jeg tror mastodons manglende popularitet kan oppsummeres i tre ting: Manglende kritisk masse (den er forsåvidt ikke så mye mindre enn BlueSky): dvs ingen herIngen algoritmer som “krydrer” feeden din med ting som gjør deg opprørt: dvs. kjedeligHyggeligere og høfligere brukere : dvs. kjedelig De to siste har jeg ikke lyst til å gjøre noe med. Men det hadde ikke skadet om antall aktive brukere økte. Jeg tror også at da folk var på jakt etter et alternativ til twitter tilbake i 2022 så var alt snakket om “federering” og “mange instanser” og “du kan sette opp en egen server” mer til forvirring enn hjelp for de fleste. En del folk kom seg forbi den bøygen og lagde seg en bruker på mastodon.social eller andre populære instanser tilbake i 2022 som kikket seg rundt og konkluderte med at “her var det for stille” (se over) og dro igjen. Det kunne vært litt interessant å finne ut hvor mange av de 13 til 17 millionene med brukerkontoer som finnes i fediverset ble lagd i 2022 og siden ikke har blitt rørt? Jeg tror det er en del. Hvordan kan norske offentlige etater bidra til å gjøre mastodon og resten av fediverset mer populært? Dersom norske offentlige etater som Politiet og Vegvesenet og Meteorologisk Institutt tilbyr samme tjenester som de tidligere tilbød på twitter via ActivityPub så vil mange flere komme seg på mastodon (eller en annen fedivers-tjeneste) for å følge PolitiOps eller Vegmeldinger. Dersom almenkringkasteren NRK lar folk som idag må laste ned og bruke appen deres, istedenfor får samme mulighet til å delta via ActivityPub så vil det bli mulig å sende inn kommentarer og bilder til TV- og radioprogrammer som man tidligere gjorde med twitter og instagram. Igjen så er det en ting som vil få folk til å skaffe seg en mastodon- eller pixelfed-konto og kommunisere via en nettside eller en app på mobil. Hvilke muligheter finnes for å ta ibruk activitypub Enkleste mulighet er for etaten å spinne opp sin egen mastodon og/eller pixelfed-instans. Mastodon og pixelfed finnes som ferdige docker-imager, eller man kan bruke docker-compose i kildekoden for å lage egne docker-image’r. Mastodon og pixelfed finnes som nedlastbar og installerbar software for de som fortsatt har fysiske servere. “Mastodon as a service” og “pixelfed as a service” finnes fra flere tilbydere (masto.host og mastodon-utviklerne for mastodon, eliesto for pixelfed) Mastodon og pixelfed finnes også som kildekode som kan lastes ned og bygges. Men dersom man, som Politiet og NRK, allerede har en egen app, som man har lyst til å fortsette med, så kan man bruke ett av mange programvare-bibliotek for å la app’ens backend også kommunisere via ActivityPub. Her er noen få av de tilgjengelige bibliotekene: Bibliotekspråk/platformlisensFedifyTypeScriptMITGo-ActivityPubGoMITBigBoneJavaMITKort oppsummert Det er mange gode grunner for å ta ActivtyPub i bruk: Kostnadene er laveMan eier sin egen infrastruktur for publiseringMan kan nå 2.2 millioner brukere over hele verden (potensielt 115 millioner brukere på Threads dersom krav fra brukerene skulle framtvinge at de åpner ActivityPub skikkelig)Nyttig informasjon fra Vegvesen, Meterologisk institutt, NRK og Politiet vil drive aktivitet opp i fediverset og sende journalister og politikere inn ditForskjell fra RSS som mange fortsatt har er at ActivityPub tillater interaksjon med leserene: leserene kan like og svare på og dele postingene med andre som også kan like og svare på meldingene Jeg kommer ikke på noen gode grunner til å la være. #activitypub #allheimen #fodiverset #fediverse #mastodon #norsktut #pixelfed #socialmedia #socialnetwork #threads #wordpress