Your a victim of your success, it seems.

I didn’t realize kbin.social went offline.

How’s your project going? Are you finding any tradeoffs you made stand out as especially worthwhile or something you’d choose differently if you started over (perhaps something you’re planning to change)?

This suggestion seems to be a bit different from what you implemented on piedfed. I’m having trouble articulating it though. Something more like a feed of user defined subset of subscribed communities/topics.

AT protocol doesn’t federate the way ActivityPub does. There are separations between how your dat is stored, how it is aggregated, how it is filtered, and how it is displayed. Each part can be hosted separately and federate differently with separate instances of each part. The aggregation part is the thing that is most critical and there are probably some limited independent instances of that, but BlueSky has offered no support in facilitating this beyond making their peices AT Protocol compliant. You van take what BlueSky built and try to run your own instance of the aggregation service but they provide no documentation or support. You could also build your own, but that’s difficult and I don’t think anyone is trying.

So it is federated, but pretty much no one is interested in doing the work to federate with the primary infrastructure.

Yeah I’m not disappointed to see this instance close up.

Theirs is a “Loli/Shota/Cub Friendly” instance according to their sidebar. That’s why they aren’t federated with many instances.

The default UI is how most new users will experience interacting with lemmy instances at first. So it’s helpful to create a better first impression. To the extent that this is built into the project itself makes it easier for other UIs to be created and maintained too.

I believe that the Lemmy devs are working on a better url scheme for posts and comments as well. This will also make it less annoying without any browser extension, script, or other third part service.

I generally agree with you.

However, I want to encourge you to consider softening up your replies to people who you don’t have a strong prior social connection with. I’ve started making an effort to do that and I’ve found that I’m having more rewarding conversations now.

That’s very different from what I think people generally want by default, which is that when you’re on lemmy.world, it’s because that’s your home instance and any links to other instances would be automatically converted to the lenmy.world version of the post or comment by default (as long as the two instances are federated).

Anyone that wants more could find a browser plugin or script, but every new user with an account of any instance would have an initial experience that’s much less confusing and more consistent and pleasant.

It’s not implimented because the developers of lemmy have been prioritizing other issues and features. They say they’re open to code contributions, so someone would have to volunteer to do it.

Why would you need another site’s browser cookies?

I’m not here to score points. I’m expressing my thoughts and reservations about the article. I’m not even taking much of a position on what developers should do. It’s more of an exploration of the landscape.

Unfortunately, skipping past a legitimate point doesn’t address the point which remains unresolved. It’s a nice rhetorical trick though. I’d rather discuss the point. (Even though others have had discussions, that doesn’t help me understand and learn.) There’s no urgency for me to reach a conclusion, so a bit of rehashing of “tired” perspectives isn’t offensive to me.

Reasonable doesn’t always mean appropriate or best for the situation. It doesn’t always lead to good or better outcomes. Shutting down and dismissing legitimate concerns is not a good way to build a consensus and and will often lead to adverse outcomes. It is ironic that this person’s approach is making the same mistakes they are trying to warn against.

There’s a clear conflict that literally can’t be ignored. It must be considered by all participants, else those participants will be unexpectedly unsatisfied with the outcomes.

I did. I’m sharing my thoughts about it. Some of those thoughts are that it seems to make assumptions that don’t hold.

That addressing is insufficient because it begs the question of consent being withheld. But the consent is implicitly given by the sending of information via the protocol, otherwise a service like Mastodon can’t exist. The question of asking for consent after it is given is the part that I’m conflicted about.

Consent isn’t really built into ActivityPub and it’s inherently the opposite of how I understand it to work (copying your content all over the place regardless of your desires).

ActivityPub is a means of sharing information in a way that the information can easily be collected and reshared. By using it, you should expect that people will collect and reshare information you send via the ActivityPub protocol.

They all seem reasonable suggestions:

• Consent matters, even for public posts
• Get broad feedback before launching – and listen to it
• Honor existing opt-in and opt-out mechanisms
• Include an additional opt-in mechanism for your service if it’s not just a search engine or profile discovery (or something very close to them)
• Make sure to communicate that you’re taking an opt-in approach and honoring existing mechanisms
• DON’T say the things that developers who ignore consent typically say
• Be extra careful if you’re a cis guy
• Look at opt-in as an opportunity for a potential competitive advantage

I’m conflicted over the fact that using ActivitiyPub necessarily implies consent for other people to collect the data you send through it. It seems that many people using ActivitiyPub connected services want something different than ActivitiyPub or different default settings on many ActivityPub services.

I’m not reading that because you clearly would rather argue than have a conversation. Enjoy the rest of your day.

I think you’re not seeing the nuance in my statements and instead are extrapolating inappropriately, perhaps even disingenuously.

Yes, it’s an example of how there are claims being made that don’t hold up.

From a government and societal perspective, there’s value in limiting anti-competative activities.