Nice demonstration of why mastodon's dominance is problematic
from maegul@hachyderm.io to fediverse@lemmy.ml on 01 May 2024 03:54
https://hachyderm.io/users/maegul/statuses/112363808789485522
from maegul@hachyderm.io to fediverse@lemmy.ml on 01 May 2024 03:54
https://hachyderm.io/users/maegul/statuses/112363808789485522
Nice demonstration of why mastodon’s dominance is problematic
See the conversions here:
https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/pull/4628
and
https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/federating-the-content-of-posts-note-articles-and-character-limits/4087
AFAICT, mastodon’s decisions, which are arguably problematic (on which see: https://lemmy.ml/post/14973403) are literally trickling down to other platforms and infecting how they federate with each other as they dance around mastodon’s quirks in different ways.
It seems like masto is ruining “the standard” with its gravity.
threaded - newest
For me mastodon was worst experience from side of admin of instance and from user experience too. Thinking it’s a little bit overcomplicated and limited. On the other hand hosting services like Lemmy and PeerTube are just breez :)
Maybe I’m just not awake enough but I’m not entirely following exactly what’s going on. Can you give me a quick summary?
@Trainguyrom
Ha
AFAIU, two platforms other than mastodon (lemmy and discourse) have issues federating because at least one of them is trying federate well with mastodon (for obvious reasons). The mastodon quirk causing issues is, AFAIU, the way it kinda mangles articles and pages (long form formats in ActivityPub), which are appropriate for forums and link-aggregators like lemmy and discourse. So someone hints been done to work well with mastodon’s mangling, which hurts lemmy-discourse interop
Oh so it’s a compatibility triangle of C being compatible with A makes it incompatible with B? Sounds like a mess for sure
Isn’t there a group of people now that’s working to improve the ActivityPub spec and actually define things so applications don’t implement it differently?
It’s a W3C managed standard, but there are tons of behavior not spelled out in the specification that platforms can choose to impose.
The standard doesn’t impose a 500 character limit, but there’s nothing that says there can’t be a limit.
That’s not what I meant. I read at some point that there’s a group of people trying to build a wiki or something, so others, who want to make fediverse software, can look up best-practices and the like. They also wanted to make demo software to test the federation against, so Mastodon doesn’t have to be used for that.
None of that matters if Mastodon doesnt implement these suggestions or standards. And from past experience its extremely unlikely that they will. Thats why I think its best to ignore what Mastodon does, its not our concern how they decide to render things.
That’s kind of what I meant too, if there’s a standardised and correct way to implement things, that’s how projects should implement it instead of trying to do it the “Mastodon” way
From the PR:
That’s a shit default, and a shitty way to treat a standard that is meant for all sorts of communication. ActivityPub is not Twitter, and it is not just for short-form communication. In fact, a majority of the web is longer-form communication that isn’t a mere 500 characters long.
Retorting with “this behaviour is configurable” is dancing around the issue. Good, sane defaults mean everything in programming.