new from me: FR#156 - Share Where?
-
@trwnh Your point is going over my head.
(a) Yes, the FEP specifies some behavior, with the goal being that different ActivityPub server software can implement it to achieve vendor-independent share (etc.) buttons.
(b) I've never implemented FEP-3b86 myself, so I'm probably the wrong person to discuss possible shortcomings. Going by the examples, its mapping of parameters to object properties appears to make it quite flexible. But I don't know – take it up with @benpate.
@julian we may just be using words differently. my confusion was regarding "activitypub-based" and "[not] implementation-specific". to me, both of those statements are false.
i think i may have already mentioned to @benpate the lack of flexibility with the FEP and also the explosion of one-off "intents", as i prefer a single outbox, much as i prefer my definition of "activitypub server" to involve publishing arbitrary activities without enumeration.
-
@julian we may just be using words differently. my confusion was regarding "activitypub-based" and "[not] implementation-specific". to me, both of those statements are false.
i think i may have already mentioned to @benpate the lack of flexibility with the FEP and also the explosion of one-off "intents", as i prefer a single outbox, much as i prefer my definition of "activitypub server" to involve publishing arbitrary activities without enumeration.
-
@julian @fediversereport this was tried and then rolled back at some point, for reasons, though I forget what those were
-
@Gargron
But why is it called Mastodon Share Button and not Fediverse Share Button? @Mastodon @fediversereport@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport My impression is that a lot of people would be upset with us if we published something claiming to be a "fediverse" tool, as if we own the fediverse. Of course, there's also not nearly the same amount of brand recognition for the fediverse as a concept. There are at least 3 unofficial symbol proposals and most people outside the fediverse aren't familiar with any of them.
-
@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport My impression is that a lot of people would be upset with us if we published something claiming to be a "fediverse" tool, as if we own the fediverse. Of course, there's also not nearly the same amount of brand recognition for the fediverse as a concept. There are at least 3 unofficial symbol proposals and most people outside the fediverse aren't familiar with any of them.
@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport Probably the body best suited to publish something like a fediverse share tool is the @swf. Regardless, I think we're well within our rights to publish a tool our users asked for, catered to our own platform. Not everything has to be for everyone. PeerTube has a PeerTube app and Sepia Search, nobody is upset (nor should they be) that those don't work with Mastodon.
-
@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport Probably the body best suited to publish something like a fediverse share tool is the @swf. Regardless, I think we're well within our rights to publish a tool our users asked for, catered to our own platform. Not everything has to be for everyone. PeerTube has a PeerTube app and Sepia Search, nobody is upset (nor should they be) that those don't work with Mastodon.
@gargron@mastodon.social that actually makes a lot of sense. I don't want to subscribe to the idea that you're on your way to the third E (
)... that you're simply trying to stay in your lane is the simplest most logical explanation. -
@julian @fediversereport this was tried and then rolled back at some point, for reasons, though I forget what those were
@halcy@icosahedron.website I'd love to learn more about prior attempts at utilising the protocol handler. Was it Mastodon who tried?
-
@ozzy @fediversereport @Mastodon @swf @hiker I think things work pretty well right now. You’ll never have 100% feature parity between platforms, sometimes it doesn’t even make sense. Some code forges now use ActivityPub between themselves, but I think most would agree it would be ridiculous to expect to be able to send a pull request to a code repository from Pixelfed or Mastodon. The important bits are the bits that are in common.
-
@julian @fediversereport https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/4511 Mastodon, and quite early. I think the removal (or at least depriorization) was because the browser UI for them was very poor and very flaky, though I don't recall details.
-
@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport @swf No, it doesn’t.
-
@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport @swf No, it doesn’t.
-
@julian @fediversereport https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/4511 Mastodon, and quite early. I think the removal (or at least depriorization) was because the browser UI for them was very poor and very flaky, though I don't recall details.
@halcy@icosahedron.website thanks for sharing! I'll have a look through and see what happened
-
@julian we may just be using words differently. my confusion was regarding "activitypub-based" and "[not] implementation-specific". to me, both of those statements are false.
i think i may have already mentioned to @benpate the lack of flexibility with the FEP and also the explosion of one-off "intents", as i prefer a single outbox, much as i prefer my definition of "activitypub server" to involve publishing arbitrary activities without enumeration.
I'd say "ActivityPub-based" is pretty close, though we could split hairs and say that #FEP3b86 does use the Activity Vocabulary.
The FEP just documents the real-world interfaces that we already have, so that websites can link to them remotely.
But I'm not sure you could make real "Share" "Like" or "Follow" buttons with just ActivityPub. It's fine for what it does, but there's a lot it DOESN'T do... and that's ok.
We're building an ecosystem, not a single protocol.
-
@fediversereport Good overview as usual.
One point I would have added is that, while Mastodon announced this Share button a while back, a “pure” ActivityPub-based way to expose share URLs and similar features exists in FEP-3b86 (https://fediverse.codeberg.page/fep/fep/3b86/) and has also been gaining prominence recently (c.f. the list of implementations).
For example, ActivityPub for WordPress published its v8.0.0 today, which includes new “Like” and “Share” buttons that use this proposal.
Mastodon's share button is a step forward. And we can celebrate that while also hoping that they don't stop here, and open it up to work with other Fediverse apps in the future.
@dansup is also working on a promising open implementation called @webintents. And hopefully someday I can publish my own share buttons, too.
The good news: everyone recognizes the need, and we're getting lots of ways to solve this problem.
-
I have a hard time visualizing what this UX would look like, and I'd *love* to dig through a drawing, or mock up, or product demo to showcase this idea. If it works, let's build it.
At the end of the day, I'll use whatever the best solution is for the end user, regardless of just about everything else.
-
new from me: FR#156 - Share Where?
on @Mastodon 's new Share button, the Mastodon API and protocol ownership
FR#156 – Share Where?
On Mastodon's new Share button, and protocol ownership.
connectedplaces.online (connectedplaces.online)
@Mastodon @fediversereport glad to see an extended critique of the way the Mastodon API has been getting entrenched in the Fediverse to the expense of the ActivityPub API
-
@fediversereport @Mastodon Is this a failure of Mastodon for not being more open or on the great AP community for not stepping up and getting a more generic share button setup sooner?
@Seth of the Fediverse @Connected Places The great AP community themselves are way more likely to whip up a Mastodon-only share button than a generic Fediverse share button, and they have done so in the past several times AFAIK.
The thinking behind this has always been one of these:- Fediverse = Mastodon. The Fediverse only consists of Mastodon.
- The Fediverse is more than Mastodon, but only barely. It isn't worth supporting all those teensy-tiny side-projects.
- The Fediverse is more than Mastodon, but it's easier to only support the biggest of all projects than to support all projects.
- People are more likely to be familiar with "Mastodon" than with "Fediverse", both on Mastodon and outside the Fediverse. Nobody would understand a "Fediverse" share button.
Oh, and Mastodon hasn't failed being more open. Mastodon has decided to not be more open. It's a fully intentional design decision and part of Mastodon's scheme to either make the rest of the Fediverse look bad or exclude it from "the Fediverse".
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon -
@hiker @Gargron @Mastodon @fediversereport @swf
If everyone implemented the exact same features, what would be the point of having dozens of different fediverse software projects in the first place? The only thing they'd differ in would be the UI then.
Imo it's cool that we have so many different projects with different visions that still can do basic communication with each other without sacrificing their uniqueness. It feels very human.
-
@hiker @Gargron @Mastodon @fediversereport @swf
If everyone implemented the exact same features, what would be the point of having dozens of different fediverse software projects in the first place? The only thing they'd differ in would be the UI then.
Imo it's cool that we have so many different projects with different visions that still can do basic communication with each other without sacrificing their uniqueness. It feels very human.
@frog_reborn
But this is about a “external” function—why should websites only want to add Mastodon button? Why not include the entire Fediverse?@Gargron@mastodon.social @Mastodon @fediversereport @swf -
new from me: FR#156 - Share Where?
on @Mastodon 's new Share button, the Mastodon API and protocol ownership
FR#156 – Share Where?
On Mastodon's new Share button, and protocol ownership.
connectedplaces.online (connectedplaces.online)
The Mastodon API is open source, but it is not an open standard. It is designed, maintained, and changed by one project, without input from the rest of the ecosystem.
Not without. The design of this API is shaped by the needs Mastodon users. Sometimes PRs are submitted by developers of 3rd party clients and by developers of other servers. Independent implementers of Mastodon API often extend it, and copy each other's extensions, there is even a discussion about Mastodon API Enhancement Proposals (similar to FEPs).
So I think that by now it is very much an open standard.
ActivityPub API may have W3C's stamp or approval, but that doesn't mean anything if nobody uses it.
P.S. Does you blog not federate anymore?
