Relaxing treatment of non-notes by Mastodon
-
@erincandescent that’s probably it. I think whatever “can of worms” that contentful Activity objects bring to the table is just normal everyday expressivity. Why force yourself to publish exclusively a Create Note or even a Create Article when you can be more semantic and publish something more accurate to what you really did? Why treat the myriad Activity types any differently? If it were just about objects, we might as well generate feeds of exclusively objects and skip the Create entirely.
-
@trwnh I love how as we hash this out it turns out the two of us are in violent agreement and we're just disagreeing on the way to proceed from what exists
-
@erincandescent @julian @mike @hongminhee @thisismissem @pfefferle @michael @renchap
You can do all of those things and they mean whatever the negotiated meaning is between the human author and the human audience.
From an AP machine view, Liking a Like just means that your Like SHOULD be added into the `likes` collection of that Like. From a human view, it simply means “I like that you liked this.”
-
Darius Kazemireplied to infinite love ⴳ on last edited by
@trwnh @erincandescent fwiw I'm 100% on board for following Collections exposed as streams. It seems to me the reasonable solution to the as:Listen-spamming issue here. If you subscribed explicitly to get as:Listen then it is completely reasonable to expect your client to know how to handle it in a way that is not annoying to the end user
-
@erincandescent haha, I don’t think it’s violent! nor do I think it’s completely agreement, either — we probably still disagree about the fundamental nature of an Activity, for example.
To summarize, how I think we should proceed is that we should implement more generic support for text reprs of arbitrary objects, including arbitrary activities. My happy default is that any object with content is a “post”, and beyond that, you MAY choose to support contentless Activity types with side effects.
-
@trwnh @julian @mike @hongminhee @thisismissem @pfefferle @michael @renchap and I agree, but I think this approach if actually implemented really combinatorially explodes the protocol. An implication of this direction of thought is that your like has a likes collection, and that likes collection has it's own likes collection, ad infinitum.
You really can express absolutely everything in ActivityPub/AS2 and it's it's biggest flaw IMO. The combinatorial explosion really paralyses implementers -
infinite love ⴳreplied to Darius Kazemi on last edited by
@darius @erincandescent It’s all just email subscriptions in my head, lol. Like in Github you can choose to be notified of comments, forks, etc. as you please. If LastFM added support for email notifications any time a friend scrobbled anything, and you subbed to that, well… hey, it’s your inbox, right?
-
@trwnh @hongminhee @julian @michael @mike @pfefferle @renchap @thisismissem if we got to do a clean slate do over, I'd commit to either full unification or separation of objects and activities, and also the "implicit collections" would not be reified as Objects (ideally we'd get structural addressing too: you'd be able to explicitly refer to a users followers - for example - without having to know the URL of the collection)
-
@erincandescent @julian @mike @hongminhee @thisismissem @pfefferle @michael @renchap
This is why it should be simplified to “just render the content/summary/name” for blogging-oriented apps. The combinatorial explosion is a consequence of hyperlinks. You can’t do away with it. Side effects should be progressive enhancements.
As a publisher, what you CAN do is decide not to put a `likes` collection on everything. This means that the Like of a Like has no side effects.
-
@erincandescent @julian @mike @hongminhee @thisismissem @pfefferle @trwnh @michael @renchap
In that clean slate scenario, i would want to explore moving the information carried by activities into headers. -
@erincandescent @darius I heavily dislike the firehose model and would be terrified if my email inbox submitted to the same philosophy.
-
@erincandescent @darius @trwnh the fediverse in general could benefit from thinner servers and thicker clients, it would make all these interop discussions so much easier
-
-
@erincandescent @darius @trwnh right, yeah, i meant this as a i'm-shouting-with-you-in-agreement-post
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Jenniferplusplus on last edited by
@jenniferplusplus @erincandescent @julian @mike @hongminhee @thisismissem @pfefferle @michael @renchap
We should go back to WebSub… and we should also go back to calling it PubSubHubbub
-
@trwnh @darius I actually think this demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the email model
There are times you want to be able to do endpoint to endpoint but potentially automatic message exchanges, and email doesn't really have a mechanism for doing this
The straightforward example is my client noticing your S/MIME or GPG key is expiring and asking if there's a new one -
Evan Prodromoureplied to infinite love ⴳ on last edited by
@trwnh @thisismissem @pfefferle @hongminhee @julian @renchap @mike @michael icon, image can help too.
-
@erincandescent @darius i think this could be solved by declaring specific endpoints for these things. no reason it should ever reach my inbox unless it's meant for my attention.
