5
submitted 1 year ago by jessel@universeodon.com to c/lemmy@lemmy.ml

question for the #lemmy users and #activitypub developers out there:

now that @lemmy is seeing a spike in interest, and @Gargron has said he's interested in building out groups on #mastodon - this seems like the right time to update ActivityPub protocol to support groups natively. anyone looking into this?

lemmy's integration into mastodon is pretty janky right now and can be a lot better!

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jdp23 5 points 1 year ago

Here's the standard, FEP-1b12: Group federation -- finalized in February.

[-] jessel@universeodon.com 2 points 1 year ago

@jdp23 will take a read through this, thanks!

[-] jdp23 2 points 1 year ago

I think it's also compatible with Friendica groups, and forums like Discourse are testing out federation as well, so there's certainly potential. @maegul@lemmy.ml calls it "the threadiverse", I wasn't sure about the term at first but it's growing on me

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I can’t point you to the details, but yes things have been worked in at the protocol level for groups. It got finalised sometime this year.

I don’t know whether any future work will be compliant with it though.

[-] shlee@aus.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@jessel @lemmy @Gargron Groups have multiple meanings tho...

"groups" as in.. a.gup.pe - people post into the group account, and it boosts for everybody following the group account to see on the main timeline like any other account.

groups as in - private group chats - a bunch of people posting to each other (not searchable/not public)

groups as in subreddits.. you subscribe to the group, and you can toot into that group... these toots are inside the group but fully interactive inside the group.

[-] bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

I'd appreciate it if you keep your toots in a private group.

[-] jessel@universeodon.com 1 points 1 year ago

@shlee @lemmy @Gargron yeah i was thinking about the last one

[-] olavf@spacey.space 1 points 1 year ago

@jessel @lemmy @Gargron

Lack of [private] groups are one of the things keeping me from spinning up an instance, because the people I'd like to prise away from FB need that.
I know there are options, but the clearest way to having a backup admin is a managed service.
Local-only posts would be spiffy too, but groups should push the bar far enough

[-] jessel@universeodon.com 1 points 1 year ago

@olavf @lemmy @Gargron +1 to private and secret groups. super important to have as there are topics that aren’t appropriate to be discussed publicly so i’m hoping the protocol supports it soon if not already

[-] mariusor@metalhead.club 0 points 1 year ago

@jessel what does "support groups natively" mean to you ?

There are Group objects in the ActivityPub vocabulary already.

Posting to a group is already covered by well trodden interactions.

With a little charity with regards to the interpretation of some other vocabulary activities we can say that joining/leaving a group are also there.

What more do you think is needed?

[-] jessel@universeodon.com 3 points 1 year ago

@mariusor i guess help me understand how we, as mastodon users, can browse and interact with lemmy content without having to use their UI or account?

if i follow @lemmy on mastodon, it seems to be a feed of unstructured replies and comments that don’t have logical cohesion. is that because they are not using the Group objects in ActivityPub? and/or the Mastodon client doesn’t support Groups natively?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)

Lemmy

12508 readers
35 users here now

Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.

For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to !meta@lemmy.ml.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS