ShittyKopper

on the contrary, 99% of the people who find themselves in a hole stop digging right before they fix the situation

But these features were totally non-standard extensions right?

that's the thing, everything in activitypub is a non-standard extension. hashtags are an extension. post visibility the way it's commonly done is an extension (more like a convention in that it doesn't introduce anything new, but still not written down anywhere official), the concept of an un-locked account is a convention (and the marker that marks an account as locked is an extension). pinned posts, marking images as sensitive, they're all extensions

(surprisingly, this is the second time i'm writing this exact thing today)

It’s weird but it almost feels like the fediverse needs a benevolent dictator to kind of get an overview and set a clearer direction, when it comes to the standards.

this has historically been mastodon. and they have put themselves in such a place that anything they do not approve of gets seen as a "nonstandard extension" and anything they approve of gets seen as a part of the standard. see the above reply.

edit: additionally, emoji reactions are federated by the SECOND MOST POPULAR free/open AP software and has implementations in at least 5 other software families (not just forks of one software, entire software families). if they cannot determine a de-facto standard but mastodon can, is AP really an open standard?

this issue is a blocker for mastodon not supporting filtering remote posts by words (which would've helped with many spam attacks, which the pleroma family supported just fine for a WHILE via MRF, and more recently misskey has added support for)

if you go to socialhub you'll find MANY threads of reasonable ideas that are in json-ld representation bikeshed hell as people unnecessarily debate over which exact json-ld representation of the same exact data is the most correctest. the most infuriating recent ones i have seen is the emoji reaction fep discussion and FEP-fb2a: Actor metadata both of which does this bullshit ON FEATURES ACTIVELY FEDERATING RIGHT NOW, where changing it would BREAK BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY

Yeah, that is a shortcoming of the protocol. But it's necessary in order to be secure until things improve (and given this is AP, that's gonna be a while. People seem to love bikeshedding in circles instead of doing actual work)

Instead of sending the entire object embedded in the activity the secure way would be to only the URI instead. This is permitted by JSON-LD.

In the receiving side, if the object is untrusted (i.e. if it isn't signed or if it's from a separate authority from the parent object containing it) it should be thrown away and the id should be fetched from the remote instance directly (same as it would happen if it was a URI instead of an inline object). This is completely an oversight on Lemmy's implementation and not a protocol problem.

I seriously doubt Lemmy currently does any validation whatsoever. There were communities using this blatant security issue for non-malicious purposes (see https://endlesstalk.org/c/[email protected], which re-wrote posts from people (which is only possible if the posts weren't validated, or at least re-fetched from their origins)).

There is a way to re-share and validate remote activities, either through LD signatures (ew, JSON-LD processing :vomit:) (which only Mastodon and Misskey implement) or the newfangled FEP-8b32 Object Integrity Proofs (which nobody relevant on the microblogging space implements).

i'm pretty excited for fedify since i'm unsure if there has been any other activitypub abstraction that feels as comprehensive as it seems right now (from a brief skim, anyway).

one thing i had in mind ever since i first skimmed the docs some time ago is this:

federation.setActorDispatcher("/users/{handle}", async (ctx, handle) => {

i would really recommend you to NOT tell people to use handles here. i assume this is just naming and the framework doesn't actually require a handle there, but documentation matters and if you follow on the footsteps of mastodon, pleroma, lemmy, and friends everyone who follows your docs will lose the ability to change usernames down the line without more pain than it's worth (and yes, there are software out there that allow it right now! please do not build fedi software assuming usernames are immutable jsut because mastodon doesn't let people do it)

just like how you wouldn't use a natural key in a database, you should tell people to use a surrogate key like an autoincrement id or a uuid on the actor IDs, as they're effectively permanent. while it may be probably fine for a quickstart thing like this to omit that, a lot of permanent codebases do start up by following these kinds of guides, and nudging people to do the correct thing when it's not that hard is always a good idea IMO

yep, definitely. i just thought "hey wouldn't it be funny if two dudes just ate some undefined substance because it's cheap" and, uhhh, yeah

i genuinely love it when people make their own meaning about shit i make sleep deprived out my mind because i thought of a funny word

Yep, all this ^^^

This is also one of the reasons why I believe ActivityPub client-to-server failed and will likely never gain much traction. It either needs every single client to re-implement all the features it wants from scratch, or the entire ecosystem needs to be dumbed down to fit a single mold. Leave all the unique functionality in "uncommon" software like (streams) and friends, even software like Lemmy or PeerTube would likely be extremely difficult to build in a world where client-to-server actually became a thing.

The only way I can see C2S actually taking off is as IPC protocol between an "app server" (which would be the equivalent of Mastodon or Lemmy or (streams)) and a "federation server" which is just a dumb pipe that distributes and receives objects and activities, and even that has it's fair share of concerns, both around efficiency and the same "dumbing down" problem.

most people on lemmy do not understand the tradeoffs both activitypub and it's implementors do, as evidenced by this exact community we're in. these memes wouldn't gain any traction even if they were funny to their intended audience (which i have doubts on if it's possible to do but idk i'm not creative enough)

id argue none of those are fun topics you can joke about but "memes as a form of outrage" (aside from, like, two) which is already a problem (see all the political memes on any of the meme communities for countless examples) we do not need to encourage imo