@julian I think Misskey does something else though. And that does come from Litepub, so could do more formalisation perhaps.
Post
-
RE: I wish NodeBB had emoji reactions, @julian just said something hilariouspostato in Uncategorized
-
I wish NodeBB had emoji reactions, @julian just said something hilariouspostato in Uncategorized
I wish NodeBB had emoji reactions, @julian just said something hilarious
-
RE: What would be a good @peertube server for like videos on open-source / fediverse / tech?postato in Uncategorized
@kboyd mmm, yeah, but MakerTube isn't what I'm doing.. :/
-
RE: What would be a good @peertube server for like videos on open-source / fediverse / tech?postato in Uncategorized
@simonjust mmm, nah, that doesn't feel quite right either. Nor did MakerTube..
-
What would be a good @peertube server for like videos on open-source / fediverse / tech?postato in Uncategorized
What would be a good @peertube server for like videos on open-source / fediverse / tech? I can't see one.
-
RE: If I wanted to mess around with ActivityPub c2s clients what's a server I can host that has support for it?postato in Uncategorized
@tom I'm slowly working on one, but it's completely unpaid work.
-
RE: Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.postato in Uncategorized
@ikuturso @mastodonmigration @breathOfLife @stefan there's plenty of DID methods that have been developed; There are some people using did:web, there's also did:webvh — but there's definitely still more work to do in this space.
I think ActivityPub could theoretically adopt did:web or did:webvh as an alternative to webfinger.
-
RE: Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.postato in Uncategorized
@mastodonmigration @breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan there's also NorthSky in Canada that's building on Blacksky's work, and I'm sure there'll be something similar in the EU too
-
RE: Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.postato in Uncategorized
@mastodonmigration @breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan this exists in the ATmosphere — https://tektite.cc/
and a demo video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SdmiCRYeZA
-
RE: Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.postato in Uncategorized
@mastodonmigration @breathOfLife @ikuturso @stefan Blacksky already recently managed a mass migration away from Bluesky hosted PDS's for their community. Similar could happen if needed for other communities.
-
RE: Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.postato in Uncategorized
@tuxwise @nik I had reason to believe it was fine, anyway, it's been taken down and replaced with this statement: https://github.com/swicg/general/blob/master/statements/2025-09-05-activitypub-and-atproto-discourse.md
-
RE: Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.postato in Uncategorized
@firesidefedi yeah, one could argue that, but there's so many other people building in the AT Protocol ecosystem that it'd only affect maybe one part of the network, there already exists alternative AppViews, Clients, Relays, and PDS's, especially if we look at the wonderful work from the Blacksky team (blackskyweb.xyz)
-
RE: Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.postato in Uncategorized
@fediforum I could certainly run a session on this, as long as I have moderators to help.
-
RE: Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.postato in Uncategorized
@jackwilliambell @j12t I'm not saying that it would be changed to support global authorities (though those already exist arguably), I'm saying that you can continue to have your own server and do whatever you want.
But I'm also saying that your server does not need to be your identity, and that data and identity can be separated from applications.
-
RE: Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.postato in Uncategorized
@ahltorp I never said anything about liking them or not, I said I haven't seen much from them, and consequently they are not representative, especially when there's so many other people doing amazing work within the ATmosphere.
-
RE: Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.postato in Uncategorized
@jackwilliambell @j12t then you literally do not need to. You can choose not to federate with anything "global" (whatever that would mean)
-
RE: Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.postato in Uncategorized
@jackwilliambell @j12t so that's the thing, with the ActivityPub API and you publishing to your outbox, and then that notifying others that you have, it's the same as current, but with your data in your control.
You don't need your PDS / outbox to participate in anything global, but it's certainly possible — you'd also have more control than you currently do with the existing Relays that bounce messages around heavily.
-
RE: Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.postato in Uncategorized
@ahltorp organisations try to raise crazy amounts all the time, especially when they thing there is sufficient hype to do so.
I haven't seen particularly much from anyone at FreeOurFeeds, and I don't think they are representative of the work going on in the ATmosphere.
-
RE: Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.postato in Uncategorized
@nik I'd received multiple people saying yes, and been granted approval to merge. As it's not a specification change, the 14 day CFC did not look like it applied, and it did not need all members to agree or co-sign.