deleted by creator

Once upon a long time ago, some old man gave a monkey an apple and then love happened and they leveled up into humans. May have been 100 or 200 or more years ago I don’t do historian.

There are others, yeah. But they’re not threadiverse. They’re quite different types of social media from Lemmy. Since OP is using Lemmy, that’s why I’m recommending Mbin, not one of those.

Like I said, if you want more integration than what Lemmy offers, do consider switching to Mbin instead. It targets both, the threadiverse and the microblogging side of the fediverse.

All that’s needed is the reminder (as visible as possible) that content you are looking at is incomplete and you can find the more complete version on this or that URL or app.

That’s what Mbin does, it displays a banner on federated user profiles explaining that they may be incomplete, with a link to the same profile on the originating instance.

NOSTR is not any more a protocol of the fediverse than ATProto and Matrix’s protocol are.

This is the first time I’ve seen anyone consider it as being part of the fediverse. Are there even any federated platforms that federate with it? If we can’t talk to it, how is it federated with us?

the same way it makes sense for Lemmy/Mbin/Piefed to only show posts made on a community.

To be fair, that’s not how Mbin works. Its communities also capture microblog posts that weren’t originally posted to a community, based on the community’s configured hashtags.

This article’s core argument seems to be that Pixelfed is violating the ActivityPub protocol by not displaying posts that do not contain images. That’s just not true at all. I’m interested to know where the protocol ever has such a requirement.

The principle behind a communication protocol is to create trust that messages are transmitted.

And they have been transmitted. They’ve been filtered out after transmission, but the protocol did its job.

If a message is not delivered, the sender should be notified.

Perhaps. But that’s not in the spec. There’s no obligation to notify iirc that a post got filtered out on the target instance.

Even if Pixelfed sent Reject(Note) back for every post without an image, would Mastodon even display that to the user anywhere? Would most users want to see that for every post not containing an image multiplied by every Pixelfed instance it got federated to? I’d personally interpret that as spam.

Lemmy doesn’t really target compatibility with Mastodon. It does have some of it by using the same federation protocol, but it’s all incidential and not actually directly supported.

If you wish for proper support, I recommend switching to Mbin instead. It’s a Lemmy-like project that aims to work with both Lemmy and Mastodon.

When it comes to communicating between Lemmy and Mastodon though, this is what I know:

Contacting specific Mastodon users

You can mention any Mastodon user the same way you’d mention a Lemmy user. They will get your mention and will see the post or comment you mentioned them in. Your instance doesn’t need to be federating with the Mastodon instance in question for this to work, as long as you’re not explicitly defederated from each other.

Federation to Mastodon

Lemmy communities show up on Mastodon as users, so Mastodon users can browse and follow them. They basically function by boosting (retweeting) every post made to them. So all you need to do for your posts to show up on Mastodon is to have a user on there follow the community you’re posting in.

Posting to Lemmy from Mastodon

Mastodon users can post to Lemmy communities by mentioning them, as if they were a user. Lemmy will display them as threads despite them being microblog posts, Mbin separates Lemmy-style threads and Mastodon-style microblog posts in your feed.

Discoverability

Interacting with Lemmy communities directly isn’t too common for Mastodon users, hence the low amount of contact between the two. If you want to increase your discoverability, add hashtags to your posts. Mastodon iirc mainly relies on hashtags for discoverability.

Lemmy does NOT let you browse Mastodon posts or follow users on there. Mbin does though. So again, if this is something you want, do consider switching instead.

Liability waivers don’t apply outside the US.

If you don’t want to see mention soup, just limit the number of mentions per post on your instance.

Doesn’t Mastodon require mentions though to function correctly? Imo instances should just not display leading or trailing mentions / hashtags. That should get rid of the problem without imposing limitations on Mastodon users.

Definitely agree with you on your first two points.

So what if Lemmy, Piefed, Mbin, and NodeBB made it so that only the first matching community gets the post?

I’m pretty sure Mbin already does that with sorting posts into communities based on their hashtags. Does it not do it with mentions too? I can’t really test it since 99% of federated posts only mention one community, if any. So I’m struggling to find a post that mentions two communities, let alone two that are active enough on my instance to compare them.

But like, is it actually an issue? I always get the impression Lemmy users have more of a problem with the hashtags and mentions in general, not with the fact the post appears in multiple communities. Which would be easily solved by having their instance remove those from microblog posts.

We can already tell which posts come from threadiverse software and which don’t (because we use audience, Mastodon doesn’t.)

I honestly don’t think that’s a good way to decide between threadiverse and others in general. There’s no guarantee non-threadiverse software won’t make use of it in the future.

reluctance to stop dealing with Russia

Can you name examples?

We did always implement all the EU sanctions afaik.

In case you meant us not using Russian assets to help Ukraine like the EU does, iirc they’re using interest, not the actual assets, for that. Which I remember reading (but don’t have a source right now) isn’t possible for Switzerland due to how they are stored in commercial banks rather than central repositories. And just seizing them would be illegal. It’s not like we don’t want to (though that’s probably a factor too), but more like we can’t.

The Nazi gold is still very much a thing.

The Nazi gold was given back. It’s very much not a thing anymore. And back to the jews I mean, not Germany.

@TheracAriane@thebrainbin.org Should work like communities Search page -> username@instance (like TheracAriane@thebrainbin.org) -> it should start fetching it then follow to get new posts federated to brainbin.

How is it only a half solution?

The headline matches the article. So if the Verge is wrong there, it’s the entire article that’s wrong, not just the headline.

You’re conflating two changes the article claims they’re making. Do you have another source that you’re basing this on?

This article outlines two changes:

• a workflow for experienced users to install unverified apps, with safeguards in place to prevent scams
• a new account type for students and hobbyists that doesn’t require verification

This article is worded to make these two appear as individual changes, not the same change.

The company says it is now developing an “advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn’t verified.” This installation flow will include safeguards to protect people who are being coerced into installing a dangerous app, or tricked by a scammer, along with “clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved.”

Google is also working on a new developer account type for students and hobbyists, which won’t have to go through “full verification requirements,” but will only allow app installs on “a limited number of devices.”

Note the word “also” in the above quote.

You have to subscribe to a community

It sounds like they did think that far, but that has its own problems for them.

my subscription to the community remains pending

This only applies though if it’s a per-device passkey that uses a private key stored securely that cannot be exported.

If the private key can be exported, it can be stolen and the factors becomes invalid.

But people also store their private key in cloud solutions (some here mentioned doing that) which just makes the factor invalid anyway, since then it’s not device-bound anymore, and it’s the device that verifies your identity with those methods.

Like, what if someone hacks the cloud service storing the passkeys and steals them? Not really any different from storing passwords in a cloud, and that one isn’t called 2FA either.