Mastodon dms are just posts with limited visibility, and a mention to the person recieving it. They don’t seem to be compatible with lemmy.

  • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    3 days ago

    I recently did a library implementing pretty much the whole ActivityPub protocol and let me tell you one thing I’ve learned: ActivityPub is a half-assed unfinished mess.

    It has so little constraints that pretty much anything is valid. You’d think that there was some logic at the core, but not really.

    For example, there’s the Like activity, the name is pretty self-explanatory. But it’s valid to like anything. You want to like another Like activity? Why not! So you can like a like that likes a like…

    Obviously, no real project implements such nonsense. But because almost everything is valid and up to interpretation of the implementer, there really is no single ActivityPub to implement that gets you running smoothly. There are many de-facto standards with various levels of compatibility with each other. Sending private messages is one such thing that many projects chose to implement in different ways.

    Fun fact: Without implementing the HTTP Signatures spec, your app will not be able to send any activities to any software, because ActivityPub allows anyone to impersonate anyone, which obviously didn’t really fly with people developing actual software that uses it.

    In conclusion, pure ActivityPub is an unusable mess in its pure form that literally won’t be able to communicate with other software implementing “ActivityPub,” so everyone is kind of implementing a similar slice/hybrid of ActivityPub and other protocols, but not exactly the same ActivityPub.

    • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 days ago

      ActivityPub is a half-assed unfinished mess.

      tried working on my own service and figured this one out very fast.

      It’s amazing that it works at all. 98% of the stuff is not documented at all. and the stuff that is, can hardly be called documentation.

    • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      They have conferences about ActivityPub. Why isn’t W3C trying to fix this mess in newer backwards-incompatible versions? The time to do it is now, not later, because it would involve a major version and years of pushing for adoption. The lack of standardization of basic concepts is why integrations of different types of implementations is a broken mess, which is the whole fucking point of ActivityPub! Now, we have to compete with ATProto, which has different kinds of problems, and it’s very possible that it just wins out and kills ActivityPub.

      This reminds of the early days of SMTP, where there was zero thought behind security, and that created an entire spam industry.

      PeerTube integration into Lemmy is still shit, poorly implemented, and rarely linked by Lemmy admins.

    • Eiri@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      Oof, sounds like we really need a new, better put together version of the protocol. I wonder if the W3C would be good to do that.

      • Zangoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Doesn’t W3C already maintain the ActivityPub protocol?

        Edit: nevermind I misunderstood this