Hi devs, @cwebber @rhiaro et al..

We're slowly evaluating underused actor types like as:Group and as:Organization and also, with an influx of new users, we are evaluating more powerful ways to moderate our communities.

Are we approaching this at the right level?

Aren't we working in different domains that do not so neatly fit the Microblogging capabilities on which and have thrived?

Is it time to define what Community means?

· · Web · 2 · 6 · 4

@humanetech @cwebber @rhiaro

No, we can't work in different domains, cause it is clearly defined in the Conformance Section:
“ENTIRETY of the client||server portion”
THEY must find ways of how to represent all types, not us for them.
But pleroma and mastodon are totally different in the sense that pleroma is using C2S and mastodon is not.
Nice discussion yesterday
Now when we have a compatible pleroma/immers/redaktor/etc. server, the software in question is only M.

@sl007 think you may be interpreting 'domain' wrong here?

I am talking in terms of domain-driven design i.e. 'business domains', or in linked data terms vocabularies / ontologies. Like is in different domain than .

C2S in technical sense defines an API interface.

But you are right about Conformance and supporting the ENTIRETY of client + server. Community domain is modelled on top of AS/AP in that regard, where is the Core Ontology.

@cwebber @rhiaro

@humanetech @cwebber @rhiaro

Yes, understood.

My point is that if mastodon stays the elephant in the room and dictates an API as standard and does all important things behind the stage

while twitter worked with a team to do Birdwatch together and transparent :

We are lost.

@sl007 @humanetech @cwebber Did you see this Cory Doctorow thread? he explains decentralization/vendor lockin in a simple way, and touches a bit on the advantages for moderation and free speech and communities:

@rhiaro I'm not convinced by this thread. It underestimates which dominance bigger instances have over smaller ones end their decision making. 😕
Seems a little bit naive to me. (he also posted it on his federated account btw) @sl007 @humanetech @cwebber

@sl007 When twitter decides to implement some form of federation it won't limit their amount of users. ;) @rhiaro @humanetech @cwebber

@eest9 @rhiaro @humanetech @cwebber

I am aware of this.
But I care about justice not about birds.

Inviting the authors of the protocol to do the same. Now.

Why shouldn't there be a "fediverse of trust" and "a fediverse".
At twitter the blue checkmark means celebrity.
At redaktor the orange checkmark means credibility …

@sl007 @eest9 @rhiaro @cwebber

The thread may be veering a bit off-topic, but I want to remind you of @darius conf video "Let's Play and Win Our Own Game".

We at are not twitter. We need not model along twitter lines. We need not be as big as twitter, or FB or any FAMAG for that matter.

We are based on AS/AP open standards, and should continue our open-standards based approach. Add our domains to interoperate with. Do research, innovate..

And THEN likely:

We win at our own Game!

@humanetech @sl007 @eest9 @rhiaro @cwebber @darius

I agree, we should concentrate on what we are good at, promote what we are good at and leave the FAGAM lot to their own.,

We can make the fediverse better just by being here and interacting / supporting each other.

@humanetech @sl007 @eest9 @rhiaro @cwebber @darius

Maybe we could agree on a standard use of FAGAM as I have seen this as GAFAM. If we can find some sort of consistency it will really help too.

@humanetech @cwebber @rhiaro I'm making real groups in right now. This is what they presently look like in the UI. A warning though: this implementation will be mostly incompatible with the existing microblogging software. You will be able to join and leave them but not much else.

@grishka @humanetech @cwebber @rhiaro

So is this something that could, at some point be merged in to Mastodon and implemented here too?

@zleap @humanetech @cwebber @rhiaro not necessarily. I think it's fine to have feature disparity between different implementations. Mastodon's goal is to be a microblogging service, not a full-blown Facebook-style social network. The only thing that is needed is capability negotiation/detection just so you don't try to do actions that a remote server doesn't support.

@grishka @humanetech @cwebber @rhiaro

Good point, I guess that may work to a point here as Qoto allows more than 500 characters, so longer here posts appear differently to those on other instances @freemo maybe able to comment further on this.

@zleap @humanetech @cwebber @rhiaro @freemo well, Smithereen's theoretical post length limit is 65536 characters (or unicode codepoints?) because that's how much fits into a TEXT column in MySQL. If someone sends a longer post, it would get truncated. The Mastodon's 500-character limit is entirely artificial to make the UX more twittery and it's perfectly capable of storing and displaying posts that are much longer, I tested that.

@grishka @humanetech @cwebber @rhiaro @freemo

ah sounds good, yeah i think that allows mastodon, to at least, probably quite easily expand the number of characters it will allow, which is good future proofing.

@mariusor @humanetech @cwebber @rhiaro yes, they're Group actors with inboxes and everything. How else would you join one of them?

yes, I was thinking more in the idea of addressing something to the group, and have it propagated to all its members.

@humanetech @cwebber @rhiaro

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!