Why aren't lemmy DMs compatible with mastodon?

Comments

• flamingos@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Lemmy will change the way it handles DMs in 1.0 specifically for Masto compatibility.

  source

  • Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Nice

    source
• rikudou@lemmings.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  They’re not, they’re a different kind of object on the ActivityPub level. Lemmy and some others use the unofficial extension called Litepub which includes a custom ChatMessage type, while Mastodon and others have chosen to repurpose the Note object (used for posts and comments on Mastodon and comments on Lemmy) with limited visibility and weird mention rules.

  source

  • Eiri@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Sounds like the protocol needs an upgrade if people are doing funny stuff like that. No?

    source

    • rikudou@lemmings.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I recently did a library implementing pretty much the whole ActivityPub protocol and let me tell you one thing I’ve learned: ActivityPub is a half-assed unfinished mess.

      It has so little constraints that pretty much anything is valid. You’d think that there was some logic at the core, but not really.

      For example, there’s the Like activity, the name is pretty self-explanatory. But it’s valid to like anything. You want to like another Like activity? Why not! So you can like a like that likes a like…

      Obviously, no real project implements such nonsense. But because almost everything is valid and up to interpretation of the implementer, there really is no single ActivityPub to implement that gets you running smoothly. There are many de-facto standards with various levels of compatibility with each other. Sending private messages is one such thing that many projects chose to implement in different ways.

      Fun fact: Without implementing the HTTP Signatures spec, your app will not be able to send any activities to any software, because ActivityPub allows anyone to impersonate anyone, which obviously didn’t really fly with people developing actual software that uses it.

      In conclusion, pure ActivityPub is an unusable mess in its pure form that literally won’t be able to communicate with other software implementing “ActivityPub,” so everyone is kind of implementing a similar slice/hybrid of ActivityPub and other protocols, but not exactly the same ActivityPub.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Kichae@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      So many AP platforms are made by a couple of guys in their garage, it’s not even funny, and the mentality of “just dicking around” means what gets used is whatever the whims of the day dictate, rather than the standard.

      “If it works, it’s not stupid” and all that.

      But that kind of work lacks real world testing, and depe concern for public expectaton or desire.

      Plus, you have to keep in mind that the idea of interplatform interoperability isn’t this core conceit of ActivityPub. It’s a potential use case, but it’s not an expectation. There’s no reason anyone should expect interop like that, other than some developers wanted to try it.

      But some didn’t, and now that their platforms are gaining audience, they’re refactoring to meet that audience’s expectations.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Irelephant@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I thought litepub was abandoned?

    source

    • rikudou@lemmings.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Yep, it was, but the spec still exists and few projects borrowed the ChatMessage type from it.

      source
  • Irelephant@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    has the FEP system helped?

    source