Comment

Comment on Unified Fediverse App - a browser solution?

lime@feddit.nu ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

the formatting is up to the client that displays the content, interestingly enough. AP just has a “message type” fields and different clients care about different types.

i’m not really sure what that gossip method achieves. surely if it’s just post metadata we’re talking a hundred bytes at most. running it separate from the main feed seems like it would just bork every single AP client that tries to use content published by this hypothetical one.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Coopr8@kbin.earth ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
Yes, the automation datastream would need to be segregated, and probably ephemeral.

The point is that if you want posts to spontaneously coalesce with some kind of shared Metadata, you want the ML content analysis information of the post to go out before the actual post is published so the final post Metadata can include the "group" tag or whatever you want to call it.

Alternately you could do it after the fact by editing the post, but that seems like there would probably be some degree of chicken and egg scenario.

All of this could be done by the client completely independent of post metadata of course, but then how do you make the relation of the posts to each other consistent between multiple users? Is that even a desireable/necessary goal is a question I suppose.

source
- lime@feddit.nu ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  
  if you want posts to spontaneously coalesce with some kind of shared Metadata, you want the ML content analysis information of the post to go out before the actual post is published
  
  i don’t understand this assertion at all. the post is the post. surely we want to classify the post based on the content of the post? tags are contained in posts. your client can just add the relevant info before sending it. figure out potential categories locally, query the server for which of them are popular, and either pick one or have the user select one.
  
  source
  - Coopr8@kbin.earth ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    The difference is that I'm talking about the automation creating completely new groupings, most akin to a community on Lemmy, that coordinated across multiple users, in my mind "simultaneously" with the user still agreeing to opt in to inclusion in that group.
    
    There is an alternative way to do this, which would be that the automation groups the posts after posting, however there is a question there about opt-in, will users want to opt existing posts in after the fact?
    
    One way that definitely would be easiest to implement would be if these groupings are essentially threads with a single piece of content as the "start" / "seed" of the thread and the other posts relating to that thread. Regarding opt-in for that I suppose it could be as easy as enabling/disabling "thread seeding"
    
    source
    lime@feddit.nu ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    so fun fact, that’s already how lemmy works. communities are not a thing in ap, so you can technically post to whatever community you want, existing or not. the lemmy software then limits users from posting to nonexistent communities. and ap already has the notion of posts having parents, so threading is also built in.
    
    source