Co-Founder (NodeBB) | Husband 🤷‍♂️ and Dad 🙉 to three | Rock Climber 🧗‍♂️ | Foodie 🥙 | Conductor 🎵 | Saxophonist 🎷

✅ Small teams craft better code.
🇨🇦 Made in Canada
🗨️ Federating NodeBB with funding from NLNet ♥️🇪🇺

  • 9 Posts
  • 200 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 14th, 2025

help-circle







  • Right on. You put into words what I haven’t been able to easily explain.

    I stumbled upon ActivityPub years ago and it appealed to me because it was built upon tried and true components of the web that I’ve been cutting my teeth on for years.

    ATProto is novel for the sake of being novel. I don’t feel it solves what it sets out to solve without introducing friction if you deviate from the happy path.







  • It’s tough to know where to stand when it comes to AI. I don’t think anybody here is hoping that the fediverse be overrun with LLMs and bring about the dead internet theory.

    A large part of why people join the fediverse (and the threadiverse, too) is to get away from corporatization, and AI is definitely part of that too.

    I just don’t think we need to go to extremes to ban AI-generated content, but more importantly, this is not a decision that can be made globally. It must be done (and enforced, however we do that) instance by instance.





  • > @bentigorlich@gehirneimer.de said in A more private way to distribute votes: > > So my proposal would be: votes are only sent to the author of a post. The author then sends an Update activity to their followers and the magazine the post belongs to.

    My concern is that this goes against the implicit assumption that the group actor (the community/magazine/category) is the source of truth.

    The group actor is the clearinghouse of data in 1b12 style federation, and it would be a departure to change votes to only be sent to the target.

    Fwiw when someone upvotes on NodeBB, it gets blasted everywhere too!

    I would recommend that votes continue to be sent to group actors, who then decide whether to announce it (old behaviour) or keep quiet and wait for the update before announcing (new behaviour).

    It would mean vote synchronization would be less reliable however.

    Also this goes directly against @rimu@piefed.social’s vote batching proposal.