I've been saying this

[gabboman@gabboman.xyz]

we also like marquee, think of the whimsical potential

[alexia@app.wafrn.net]

oh, I think we would be perfect for that actually! we recently (like, 2 days ago) pushed the relevant code and deployed it to app.wafrn.net

we implemented GoToSocial's spec de-facto, in addition to Bluesky's (due to us federating over both AP and AT), but we think there's things to be improved here (like gating a whole thread instead of per-post) that have found some interest from GTS' team too, from what I've heard from gabbo at least.

ps: also funny you mention bites, we have that literally

[julian@activitypub.space]

Yes, it also disappoints me at times, because I see lots of effort over trying to figure out how to engage AP developers better — with minimal results, and meanwhile the Bluesky people are just seemingly having a ball over there riding on inertia.

In addition to work I'm doing trying to improve interop between threadiverse apps, I do try to help by providing DevOps style support for those looking to integrate AP.

Perhaps there's more I can do, I just don't know what it is.

[julian@activitypub.space]

TIL we support <small>, that's fun.

NodeBB's been holding off on interaction controls specifically because there isn't an FEP, but we'll sign on when one is written (and @julian@fietkau.social is certainly on the ball with that one, so :+1: )

He's also been proactive in ensuring that context-aware policies are accounted for, even if not explicitly defined anywhere at current.</small>

[mradcliffe@nokoto.org]

@julian @alexia I was trying to follow this thread via ActivityPub, but unfortunately I am only able to read alexia’s posts by visiting activitypub.space directly (which is perfectly fine because I like visiting and reading content on other people’s web sites directly!).

It seems like its returning text/html for me when I try to access them internally despite asking for ActivityPub content via an Accept header.

[mradcliffe@nokoto.org]

@julian @alexia I wonder if I am getting 404’d, and the 404 response is in HTML rather than one of the ActivityPub Content-Types. :|

[julian@fietkau.social]

@alexia Actually @gabboman is already in the Matrix chat, so I think we've got wafrn covered! I was thinking moreso about projects like Sharkey and Akkoma, where I don't believe I know anyone except in very distant passing. Plus, drafting RFC-style documentation isn't everyone's deal.

My stance on participation in the FEP at this stage has been “not public yet, but open door,” so anyone who would like to contribute (or has strong opinions) is welcome. 🙂

@liaizon

[liaizon@social.wake.st]

@julian @alexia @gabboman hey @julia (Sharkey maintainer) and @FloatingGhost (maintainer of Akkoma) are either of you interested in participating in drafting a Comment Controls FEP or have any points that should be kept in mind specific to either of your projects?

[julia@eepy.moe]

@liaizon@social.wake.st @FloatingGhost@ihatebeinga.live @julian@fietkau.social @alexia@app.wafrn.net @gabboman@gabboman.xyz there isn't really need for a specific comment controls FEP? The GoToSocial interactionpolicy already provides this, albeit without the stamp system of the quote authorization FEP. is that what you're suggesting?

Wouldn't be opposed to such a feature on the fediverse, though Sharkey wouldn't be in a great place to be a first implementer of it- we're behind on things as is.

[julian@fietkau.social]

@julia The goal for this FEP is to generalize the GTS approach. Their docs leave a few TBDs and underspec interactions with features that GTS does not have, such as conversation backfilling and context management.

Basically I started with a copy & paste of the GTS document and have been toiling away at potholes. 🙂 (That's why I thought it would be a quick adventure, how naive I was.)

@FloatingGhost @liaizon @alexia @gabboman

[gabboman@gabboman.xyz]

We needed to extend a feature: “yo ask the op of the thread instead of me for permission to reply”

Reason:

i make a post marked as “only people I follow”

Then person2 replies in “only people I (person2) follow”

Now, “Mr replyguy who is followed by person2” joins the chat and honors his name

[julia@eepy.moe]

@gabboman@gabboman.xyz @liaizon@social.wake.st @julian@fietkau.social @FloatingGhost@ihatebeinga.live @alexia@app.wafrn.net oh true that'd be nice

[julian@activitypub.space]

"Permission to reply" or "Reply not accepted"? Those are two different things. The former would be really nice, but I don't think is likely. The latter is where are today, albeit with patchwork implementation, I think.

[julian@fietkau.social]

@julia @gabboman I would consider this part of context management. Reply interactability is one part, reply visibility is another famous one.

The current scope of the FEP is to make sure the door is open for FEP-7888 / FEP-11dd contexts, but we'll probably not fully spec it out, since GTS as the “reference implementation” can't provide it. May punt the details to a future FEP.

Gabbo wants to solve it quickly though, so who knows how this will go in practice. 😄

@FloatingGhost @liaizon @alexia

[gabboman@gabboman.xyz]

Ill just copy what mastodon did with quotes as a “good version” and meanwhile (by meanwhile I mean “mastodon doesn’t do it” ill use the collection replies. Probably

#I-actually-need-to-implement-that-too

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@alexia @liaizon 👋🏼

You can check our blog for the work we do. I try to share our efforts pretty regularly.

https://socialwebfoundation.org/blog/

Long-form text was one of our first projects. You can see our work on FEP-b2b8 and the conformance tests we did with producers and consumers.

Please lmk if you have other questions!

[alexia@app.wafrn.net]

hi, sorry if it came off a bit insensitive, there's more replies down the thread that goes a bit more into detail but this one post is way misrepresentative and a bit pessimistic

#sorry-again

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@alexia @liaizon Part of my job is making sure people know about the work we do. If there's any apology to be made, it's on my behalf! Thanks for highlighting it and reminding me that we have communications work to do.

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@alexia @liaizon I don't think SWF wants to be "the" organization for defining applications on the Fediverse, but we do want to clear obstacles to collaboration between developers. There are at least two other groups doing social standards on ActivityPub right now:

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@alexia @liaizon

- The Social Web Community Group at the W3C (@socialcg@w3.social). This is an open group for extending and improving ActivityPub and related standards. There are task forces for forums, groups, end-to-end encryption, remixing, discovery, data portability, trust and safety, geosocial data, and more.
- The FEP process. Loosely connected to the SocialCG but more lightweight. https://fediverse.codeberg.page/fep/