Comment

Comment on "ActivityPub not suitable for implementation as the base federation layer in diaspora"

Last time I checked downvotes in kbin are not federated at all, by design. Lemmy users cannot boost content at all as far as I'm aware, and it's not holding them back. Developers are completely capable of looking to past implementations and make informed decisions about interoperability in whatever way they see best fit

As I understand it, this is the exact complaint from the blog post. This is great for devs; it's not great for users. I am referencing this part:

Putting the ActivityPub logo on a project’s website and writing “we support ActivityPub” announcement posts makes technically versed people very happy, and people supporting open standards will read them with shining eyes. However, there is a secondary effect: these announcements carry over something to non-technical users as well. It tells users that this piece of software is compatible with other pieces of software that carry the same logo. But it is not. In another recent discussion, when someone asked me why diaspora* does not support ActivityPub yet, I claimed the project has two options here, which has a direct impact to how we can explain the compatibility with users on other networks:

Sorry, Alice, Bob is using software that is not compatible with us, so you can’t communicate with Bob here.
Yes, you can communicate with Bob, but since he is using ExampleNet, please be aware that Bob will not receive your photo albums and will be unable to interact with those. Carol will see your photos, though, but unfortunately, she will not be able to see your geo-location updates. Moreover, because of technical limitations, Dan can comment on your posts, but we cannot make sure that Carol and Bob see those, because we cannot redistribute Dan’s comments.

I, perhaps foolishly, assumed that ActivityPub was more structured than it actually is. Though, to be fair, as you point out, this is an older blog post, so there's some chance that things have improved on that front-- I admit I'm no expert on ActivityPub-- but notably, "there are only a few different implementations, so it's easy to dig around and make your new implementation compatible" isn't an improvement. It doesn't scale. It's practically begging for the now infamous EEE to happen to it, because whatever is the most popular implementation sort of becomes the standard.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sab@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I think it is great for users. Ernest, the developer of kbin, actively wanted not to federate downvotes because he thought it would be better for the user experience. It is of course open for debate, but it's a decision made with users in mind, not related to the ease of development.

Of course, there is a dimension if the critique that rings true. If I talk to someone using Firefish they might respond to me using a emoji response, which I will of course not see over at kbin. I just can't think of a devastating real world example.

Regarding EEE, nobody owns the right to any specific implementation. Sure, Threads could use activitypub but use a different logic for favourites than Mastodon does, and they wouldn't be able to communicate favourites with each other. We could imagine the entire fediverse jumping after Meta, desperate to see the hearts added by Threads users. And then... what exactly? The extinguish step is a bit unclear to me.

source
- effingjoe@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  
  he thought it would be better for the user experience
  
  Is this articulated somewhere because I was under the impression that everything was federated, and this plays right into the point. Why should this be up to the devs? Or, perhaps better worded, what information does the "ActivityPub" label actually tell an end user, right now? Seemingly nothing at all, from a functional standpoint. It's possible for two ActivityPub-labeled implementations to be completely incompatible, right? Does that sound good for users?
  
  I just can't think of a devastating real world example.
  
  Why is this your chosen metric? Wouldn't "this might make the users confused" be a better metric?
  
  The extinguish step is a bit unclear to me.
  
  Once they're the de facto standard they abandon it altogether and the users, who care little about the nuts and bolts of this, get frustrated and make an account on Threads (using your example).
  
  It's worth keeping in mind that we're not talking about normal software. A hypothetical technically perfect solution is still a failure if there isn't a critical mass of users to make it "social".
  
  source
  - e569668@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    There's some relevant discussion here and in the thread linked by ernest in that post here. I don't want to give any wrong information, but I don't think activitypub has a spec for downvotes/reduces/dislikes, just likes and shares (boosting). So on mastodon dislikes definitely aren't federated. I believe for lemmy, they federate between lemmy instances that have them enabled, but for kbin they are local to your instance.
    
    source
    effingjoe@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I appreciate the additional information, however, a link found in the codeberg link you provided leads to this comment from earnest:
    
    The up arrow is the equivalent of a boost on Mastodon, adding to favorites is represented by a star. The down arrow is equivalent to the Dislike button on Lemmy and Friendica, Mastodon probably doesn't have an equivalent (Dislike will be federated this week). Compared to Lemmy, it works a little differently, as the up arrow there is the equivalent of a favorite.
    
    The comment activity can be checked by expanding the "more" menu and selecting "activity"
    
    This seems to imply that downvotes (reduces) are federated. (And notably, upvotes are now "stars" "boosts" are, uh, "boosts".
    
    Or am I totally missing something? That's always and option.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments