question for the #lemmy users and #activitypub developers out there:

now that @lemmy is seeing a spike in interest, and @Gargron has said he’s interested in building out groups on #mastodon - this seems like the right time to update ActivityPub protocol to support groups natively. anyone looking into this?

lemmy’s integration into mastodon is pretty janky right now and can be a lot better!

      • Jon
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it’s also compatible with Friendica groups, and forums like Discourse are testing out federation as well, so there’s certainly potential. @maegul@lemmy.ml calls it “the threadiverse”, I wasn’t sure about the term at first but it’s growing on me

  • Shlee fucked around and@aus.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    @jessel @lemmy @Gargron Groups have multiple meanings tho…

    “groups” as in… a.gup.pe - people post into the group account, and it boosts for everybody following the group account to see on the main timeline like any other account.

    groups as in - private group chats - a bunch of people posting to each other (not searchable/not public)

    groups as in subreddits… you subscribe to the group, and you can toot into that group… these toots are inside the group but fully interactive inside the group.

  • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can’t point you to the details, but yes things have been worked in at the protocol level for groups. It got finalised sometime this year.

    I don’t know whether any future work will be compliant with it though.

  • Olav@spacey.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    @jessel @lemmy @Gargron

    Lack of [private] groups are one of the things keeping me from spinning up an instance, because the people I’d like to prise away from FB need that.
    I know there are options, but the clearest way to having a backup admin is a managed service.
    Local-only posts would be spiffy too, but groups should push the bar far enough

    • jessel@universeodon.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      @olavf @lemmy @Gargron +1 to private and secret groups. super important to have as there are topics that aren’t appropriate to be discussed publicly so i’m hoping the protocol supports it soon if not already

  • marius@metalhead.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    @jessel what does “support groups natively” mean to you ?

    There are Group objects in the ActivityPub vocabulary already.

    Posting to a group is already covered by well trodden interactions.

    With a little charity with regards to the interpretation of some other vocabulary activities we can say that joining/leaving a group are also there.

    What more do you think is needed?

    • jessel@universeodon.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      @mariusor i guess help me understand how we, as mastodon users, can browse and interact with lemmy content without having to use their UI or account?

      if i follow @lemmy on mastodon, it seems to be a feed of unstructured replies and comments that don’t have logical cohesion. is that because they are not using the Group objects in ActivityPub? and/or the Mastodon client doesn’t support Groups natively?