Comment on we need more users
rglullis@communick.news 4 weeks agoMy point is that you can have a “content-centric” application separate from the “user-centric” application, but they are just different ways to represent and interact with the data in the social graph and as such they don’t separate APIs.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
yeah, i think embedding Lemmy content into Mastodon is trivial, because you just show the post. But the other way around, embedding Mastodon posts into Lemmy could be a bit more tricky, because in what community do you show the post? There could be a virtual community for each Mastodon server, like when you post something on mastodon.de, then it’s displayed on the lemmy community /c/all@mastodon.de
What do you think of this?
rglullis@communick.news 4 weeks ago
In ActivityPub terms, there is no such thing as a “Mastodon posts” or “Lemmy communities”. You just have “authors” and “audiences”. In effect, it would mean that you emulate a “post to a community” by writting a post with the community as the “audience”, and anyone that follows the actor that represents the group (equivalent to the Lemmy Community) would find the posts.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
so you are saying that each author should represent their own community that they populate with posts each time they post something
rglullis@communick.news 4 weeks ago
I am not sure whether “represent” is the right word here. What I mean is that all posts have a “recipient” (the audience).
For Mastodon, you have public posts where the recipient is literally a “special” audience, called
https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public. If you want to see a private message to alice, you just change the “audience” to contain only thehttps://example.com/aliceactor URI.To post to a community, it’s the same logic: if you are posting on
fediverse@lemmy.world, then the message has “lemmy.world/c/fediverse” as the audience. This message is then sent to lemmy.world and processed.