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 7
  • 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'

  • 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

    Good to know, thanks! Also, good idea on the opt-out.

  • the conversations should be combined

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

    There is, but I am not sold on giving up entirely on the idea simply because disparate communities might not want to talk to another.

    I agree that treading lightly is paramount, but the benefits of cross-community interaction could very much be worth it!

    One thing is for sure: making this an opt-out is not the way forward.


Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
  • There is, but I am not sold on giving up entirely on the idea simply because disparate communities might not want to talk to another.

    I agree that treading lightly is paramount, but the benefits of cross-community interaction could very much be worth it!

    One thing is for sure: making this an opt-out is not the way forward.

    read more

  • Good to know, thanks! Also, good idea on the opt-out.

    read more

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

    read more

  • 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.

    read more

  • 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.

    read more

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

    read more

  • 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.

    read more

  • the conversations should be combined

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

    read more
Post suggeriti
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    0 Views
    This release puts speed and control right at your fingertips. Whether you’re jumping between settings, syncing followers, or handling quotes in real time, version 7.6.0 makes managing your Fediverse presence faster and more intuitive than ever.Navigate in a FlashSay hello to the quickest way to move around your ActivityPub settings.In preparation for WordPress 6.9, which brings the Command Palette (Cmd/Ctrl + K) to the entire wp-admin, the plugin now adds its own commands, giving you instant, keyboard-driven access to your workflows anywhere in WordPress.Type “ActivityPub” and you’ll see context-aware commands that adapt to your site setup and user role. Whether you’re managing a blog actor or a user actor, you can open followers and following lists, check blocked actors, jump straight to your settings, or even search and edit extra fields — all without ever leaving the Command Palette.Every command includes the ActivityPub icon for easy recognition. Just press Cmd + K or Ctrl + K, start typing, and go — it’s the smoothest way yet to pilot your Fediverse setup.Stay in Sync Across the FediverseYour follower lists now stay accurate wherever you connect.With support for Follower Synchronization (FEP-8fcf), the plugin automatically keeps your followers collection in step with other servers — even when things drift out of sync.If differences appear, background tasks quietly reconcile them, keeping your lists clean and consistent. The result is a smoother, more reliable experience across the entire Fediverse — no manual fixes required.Speed When It CountsQuoted posts and follow confirmations now move at the speed of conversation.A new immediate Accept dispatch system sends responses as soon as they’re created, instead of waiting for the next scheduled queue.That means faster follow confirmations and quicker quote acknowledgments, making interactions feel more natural across the Fediverse. Behind the scenes, those Accept messages go straight to the right inboxes — including mentioned and replied-to users — while a scheduled backup ensures full compatibility with slower servers.It’s a smart balance between speed and reliability, helping your posts and follows appear almost instantly.Privacy, Your WayWant to keep your social graph private? You can now hide your followers and following lists from public view while keeping all relationships intact. Your followers still follow — they’re just hidden when you prefer a little more privacy.Full ChangelogAddedAdd bidirectional transforms between reply and embed blocks for improved user experience.Add Command Palette integration for quick navigation to ActivityPub admin pagesAdded a new ap_object post type and taxonomies for storing and managing incoming ActivityPub objects, with updated handlersAdded a privacy option to hide followers and following lists from profiles while keeping follow relationships intact.Added a scheduled task and setting to automatically purge old inbox items, helping maintain site performance and storage control.Added fallback to trigger create handling when updates fail for missing posts or comments, ensuring objects are properly created.Added immediate dispatch for Accept activities to speed up quoted posts while keeping scheduled processing for compatibility with other instances.Added new configuration options to better manage traffic spikes when federating posts, allowing finer control over retry limits, delays, and batch pauses.Added support for FEP-8fcf follower synchronization, improving data consistency across servers with new sync headers, digest checks, and reconciliation tasks.Add LiteSpeed Cache integration to prevent ActivityPub JSON responses from being cached incorrectly. Includes automatic .htaccess rules and Site Health check to ensure proper configuration.Add quote visibility setting for Classic Editor users.Add unified attachment processor for handling ActivityPub media imports from both remote URLs and local files, with automatic media block generation and Classic Editor support.Integrate Federated Reply block with WP.com Reader’s post share functionality, allowing users to reply to ActivityPub posts directly from the Reader.ChangedAdded support for FEP-3b86 Activity Intents, extending WebFinger and REST interactions with new Create and Follow intent links.Added support for the latest NodeInfo (FEP-0151), with improved federation details, staff info, and software metadata for better ActivityPub compliance.Extended inbox support for undoing Like, Create, and Announce activities, with refactored undo logic and improved activity persistence.Improved Classic Editor integration by adding better media handling and full test coverage for attachments, permissions, and metadata.Improved delivery of public and follower activities by expanding local recipient handling to include all ActivityPub-capable users and follower collections.Improved inbox performance by batching and deduplicating activities, reducing redundant processing and improving handling during high activity periods.Improved REST API responses with smarter context handling.Improved REST collection pagination by using explicit total item counts for more accurate results.Moved default visibility handling from the server to the editor UI, ensuring consistent and flexible ActivityPub visibility settings across both block and classic editors.Prevented self-announcing by ignoring announces from the blog actor, while still processing announces from user and external actors.Refactored activity handling to support multiple recipients per activity, allowing posts and interactions to be linked to several local users at once.Refactored avatar handling into a new system that stores and manages avatars per remote actor, improving reliability and preparing for future caching support.Refactored the inbox system to use a shared inbox, storing activities once with multiple recipients for improved efficiency and reduced duplication.Reorganize integration loader and move Stream integration into dedicated folder structure.Reply posts: do not display post title before @mentions in posts that are replies to somebody elseSimplified configuration by always enabling the shared inbox and removing its separate setting, UI field, and related logic.Simplified inbox storage settings, allowing certain activities (like deletes) to be skipped to reduce unnecessary database use.Simplify follow() API return types to int|WP_Error for better predictability.Updated inbox handling to support multiple users receiving the same activity and improve overall data consistency.Updated mailer hooks to send notifications only when activities are successfully handled, preventing emails for failed events.Update plugin short description to be more user-friendly.FixedReply block now properly validates ActivityPub URLs before setting inReplyTo fieldAdded a safeguard to ensure the plugin works correctly even when no post types are selected.Added a safety check to prevent errors when resolving comment author hostnames without a valid IP address.Fixed activity processing to handle QuoteRequest and other edge cases more reliably.Fixed an issue with post content templates to ensure the correct fallback is always applied.Fixed fatal error when transformer Factory receives WP_Error objects.Fixed HTML entity encoding in extra field names when displayed on ActivityPub platformsFixed typo in example, improve quoting description.Fix Following table error message to display user input instead of empty string when webfinger lookup fails.Fix infinite recursion when storing remote actors with mentions in their biosFix local inbox delivery to use internal REST API instead of HTTP, enabling local follows and proper boost counting.Fix logic errors in Move handler: remove redundant assignment and fix variable name collision.Fix public key retrieval for GoToSocial profiles with path-based key URLs.Improved actor resolution by prioritizing blog actor detection before remote actor checks and refining home page URL handling.Improved handling of empty fields for better compatibility with Pixelfed and more consistent fallback behavior across actor names, URLs, and related data.Improved hashtag encoding for consistent formatting.Improved Jetpack integration by initializing it during the WordPress startup process.Refactored Mastodon import handling to use consistent array-based data, improving reliability and compatibility across all import scenarios.DownloadsWordPress.org: activitypub.7.6.0.zipGitHub: tag/7.6.0Thanks, Crew!Big thanks to everyone who contributed code, feedback, and testing to make this release possible. You keep ActivityPub evolving with every version.Version 7.6.0 is now live — update today and enjoy lightning-fast navigation, smarter synchronization, and smoother federation! ❤️
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    7 Views
    The #Fediverse track at #SFSCon in Bolzano, Italy, that we've organized is starting in 24 hours.We have a Signal back channel for attendees. DM for an invite if you are attending.https://www.sfscon.it/tracks/fediverse-track-2025/
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    9 Views
    Urusai.social is a friendly and non-toxic Glitch Mastodon server for anime, manga, and other otaku subjects. It includes lots of extra features including extended posts, emoji reactions, additional themes, hover-zoom for emoji etc.This server has a post size of up to 800 characters. https://urusai.socialYou can find out more at https://urusai.social/about or contact the admin @neatchee #FeaturedServer #Anime #Manga #Otaku #Japanese #Japan #Mastodon #Fediverse #FreeFediverse
  • 0 Votes
    2 Posts
    9 Views
    fedigarden@social.growyourown.services I would like to submit ActivityPub.space to this list but I am unable to comply with Threads defederation. We are topic-focused around AP development and would not want to exclude those developers outright. There are occasionally discussions about Threads/AP interop that could be useful and on-topic. It'd be like closing off discussion about ATProto/AP discussion by blocking BridgyFed. I could consider something like an opt-in for that domain?