Sounds like Rakuten actually…

> If it’s some automated feature, I don’t think it should be in the source property of the federated JSON in the first place.

Thanks, it’s this.

Edit: oh interesting, I looked into it. We serve the absolute URL in HTML but not in markdown. I had no idea threadiverse apps read the markdown. Neat!

@rekall_incorporated@piefed.social said in [Fediverse wide cross-instance / cross-platform link substitution [UX improvement thoughts]](/post/https%3A%2F%2Fpiefed.social%2Fc%2Ffediverse%2Fp%2F1568622%2Ffediverse-wide-cross-instance-cross-platform-link-substitution-ux-improvement-thoughts): > This issue is unresolved in Lemmy, but the Lemmy brand is permanently tainted among users who are looking for alternatives to American oligarchic technology services. The low moral standards of the Lemmy devs’ (support for the brutal North Korean regime, promotion of russian propaganda narratives that they know are false) is a massive turn off for the exact target market of the Fediverse. It’s a fact that many Europeans looking for alternatives instinctively recognize the demagoguery of the Lemmy devs and their fans.

I don’t think this is true at all.

The average user doesn’t know what Lemmy is, let alone the political views of their core development team.

But don’t worry, it’s like that joke about vegans:

How do you know the Lemmy devs are politically dubious? Don’t worry, someone on the threadiverse will tell you.

Hmm, how do you reconcile the fact that not all FEPs are applicable to all application types?

For example soft deletion is preferable but not required…

Indeed, this is where the majority of improvements to the Fediverse are shared for archival.

The very way Lemmy Piefed Mbin and NodeBB can communicate and synchronize communities is detailed in those FEPs. Check out FEP 1b12.

Well that is weird, why did the link get confuzzled…

Response from Dan

https://mastodon.social/[dansup](https://activitypub.space/user/dansup)/115678527443322224

If you’re talking protocols, then why is WordPress there?

If you include Wordpress there are about 100 other softwares that should also show up, but then you also need more paper 😁

You jest, but I’m pretty sure someone out there made a cli interface for AP.

fijxu@programming.dev nadeko… Why does that sound familiar? I think you used to host a Canadian Invidious instance I used to use! 😂

My go-to is spectra.video, run by deadsuperhero@lemmy.ml

silverpill@mitra.social isn’t wrong though, in many cases the posts do mean to be posted in that community.

But it’s an expressive thing. I’m able to mention a community like startrek@startrek.website and it won’t be posted there, because I’m only mentioning that community.

And yes, Mastodon needs mention spam to function because otherwise people you reply to won’t know they received a reply. It’s … an approach.

If it’s not an issue currently, then that’s even better 👍

At least on NodeBB we only post to one community, but it’d still happen even if other communities on other instances were mentioned first, so it could still be abused.

E.g. mention four communities on four different instances, get posted to four communities.

I’ve been looking into how to accomplish this too… because it is a UI/UX problem and I am very bad at designing user interfaces.

Mixing them like so works, although it’s hard because then it minimizes the size of topics (since it is just the title.) It means microblog content get a bit of a UI boost due to on screen size.

Limiting the max height of microblog posts and showing a snippet of the threaded content OP is another way, but that makes the page more feed-like and less of a “topic listing”, which isn’t always the way to go either.

For reference, NodeBB also mixes threads and microblog posts. We do this by generating a title from microblog posts. It’s not the best solution either.

auster@thebrainbin.org may I ask you to expand in what you mean by “underlying engine”?

If you’re talking about ActivityPub then it’s a open standard which isn’t beholden to any one organization. It’s like saying HTML is bad because websites are all forced to use it as the underlying engine.

I personally feel that the technical and mental overhead of maintaining a bridge is much worse than the overhead of a slowly changing standard. What if there are bridges for 20 different protocols, 200? When does it get unwieldy?

There is, but I am not sold on giving up entirely on the idea simply because disparate communities might not want to talk to another.

I agree that treading lightly is paramount, but the benefits of cross-community interaction could very much be worth it!

One thing is for sure: making this an opt-out is not the way forward.

What if upon cross-posting the default is separation, but a request is sent to the original community to request a comment tree merge?

Then you don’t have to share comment space with the tankies unless you wish it

cc blaze@piefed.zip

That’s one of the issues that need to be worked through. It’s a totally legitimate concern.

In cases where communities with polarising viewpoints discuss the same topic, it would lead to inter-community disputes and exacerbate some instance relationships.

One solution would be to have the original community be responsible for moderation, and moderation actions from cross-posted communities only affect their “view”, so to speak.

I don’t know what the answer is quite yet.

From a discoverability standpoint it would be beneficial to see other communities’ conversations on the same post.

Hmm… that’s nice, but the comments are still separated.

It would be better if the separate reply chains were integrated but I know there are potential issues that need to be thought through.