:grimacing:

@projectmoon@forum.agnos.is have you tried navigating directly to the url without the preceding @? It isn’t required (for NodeBB).

In cases where the category is currently a user, you’ll have to put the whole handle into the search box and execute the search, the category will then be migrated from the user.

@emperor@feddit.uk it is! The in-development stuff I’m working on makes it much easier to post directly to a Lemmy community.

This is probably the first, yes. It was also a bit of a live test at the same time.

Let’s clarify something here. Mastodon follower only posts don’t have the “public pseudo user” addressed, do they?

That’s the important piece that this whole thing hinges upon

If it is present, Mastodon is a fault. If not, Pixelfed messed up.

Am I mistaken?

For example, a followers-only post is addressed to the followers collection of the author, at minimum. When NodeBB sees this, it doesn’t even consider it public, because the public pseudo user isn’t addressed. We also have no concept of “followers only”, but we handle them just fine.

@fauxpseudo@lemmy.world as I learned, the latter—kai oats—is Canadian.

A note that the ForumWG meeting is scheduled to begin shortly: https://meet.jit.si/ap-forum-wg

@malikmuaddibsoong@startrek.website it’s been a long road, gettin’ from there to here

@AltCode all three flipboard remote categories seem to be working now :joy:

The remaining questions here are:

• whether preferredUsername is meant to be unique to the instance (in which case having multiple ids point to an identical preferredUsername would be a violation), and
• what exactly AP software should do when it encounters this situation… store a list of “known alias” IDs? There are potential security issues to doing so.

@AltCode I forked this out to a new topic. I think it’s time to loop @pfefferle@mastodon.social into the conversation (at the very least so this could be potentially escalated).

Mattias, it seems that when the WPML and ActivityPub plugins are enabled together, notes federated out by the blog user in another language have different ids but the same preferredUsername.

e.g. ruari@vivaldi.com: https://vivaldi.com/?author=46 and https://vivaldi.com/ja/?author=46

NodeBB interprets this as two different users. Curiously, Mastodon does not, the second ID explicitly does not resolve.

So there can be two solutions here:

1. The underlying issue can be fixed by WordPress, the solution of which is out of scope (for me at least)
2. NodeBB can adopt whatever mechanism Mastodon is using… which is most likely that Mastodon does a two-way when asserting an ID, and ensures that the webfinger resource points to the ID.

@AltCode okay! Thanks for reporting, it sounds like there are two issues going on:

1. Categories losing their handle-to-id association
   • Frustratingly, this read very similarly to #13283, and both remote users and categories share similar logic. I have so far not been able to reproduce it at all on local development.
2. Separate users (different IDs) sharing the same preferredUsername.
   • This is an interesting one, and I am not entirely sure where the fault lies. I wonder how other software handles it?

@fordbeeblebrox@lemmy.world that’s because Discovery is just bad fan fiction.

It makes Enterprise worth watching.

> Also there may be (?) a new workflow involving an Accept from the moderators of the destination audience.

Thanks for calling that out, that’s a legitimate use case that I would not have anticipated.

Based on the replies received, it does sound like at present that if cross-posting is a consideration, it is something done locally, and not something that is explicitly declared when federating outward or retrieved via AP.

There are also multiple definitions of cross-posting:

1. Multiple, disparate topics sharing the same attachment url (PieFed)
2. Author targeting multiple audiences
3. Non-author sharing object to additional audiences

One of those is really not like the other, which does complicate things somewhat. Thankfully, it does seem like that the way PieFed handles it, is local to the instance.

A good first step might be to narrow down the definition of cross-posting—at least from a protocol level—to a combination of the latter two:

> “A user (which may or may not be the object author) sharing an object to additional audiences”

Of course, this also happens to be what I’m looking for: the association of an as:announce activity with an as:target pointing to an as:Group actor.

Would this be of interest to anybody here? The fallback mechanism is to just treat the announce as usual.

@mario@hub.somaton.com that’s wonderful to hear! Thank you so much.

@scott@loves.tech how does Hubzilla communicate this to other 'za instances?

Something like a boolean for whether the public can post would take you part of the way there.

Hmm… considering that Piefed cross-posts are entirely separate posts, then if the original is edited, then the modification is not carried over to the cross-posted post, correct?

I’m thinking that for NodeBB we could continue to have cross-posts reference the canonical topic. They’d simply be part of a separate audience as well.

Whether this is local-only or not, I am not sure yet. Perhaps for federation purposes we’d still report the original category (if there is one) under audience

@rimu@piefed.social excellent… yes this is the kind of difference I’d love to explore and potentially put together an FEP for…

@mario@hub.somaton.com since Hubzilla posts (incl. yours) are making it in fine I’m assuming this is only for the “forum” feature?

Forgot to cc @mario@hub.somaton.com re: the above.