1096
we need more users (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 8 months ago* by to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
933 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I've been one of the people saying "we don't need more users. we need quality over quantity" and i was wrong.

the way it's going, lemmy needs active users who post content sothat the network stays relevant. networks like the fediverse benefit from network effects and that means that if we have more users, that improves the value and quality of the fediverse overall.

So please, everyone, when you can, make advertisement for the fediverse in your personal area. Go talk to friends, make attractive stickers and put them everywhere, stuff like that. We would all benefit from it.

edit: source for the graph

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 8 months ago (18 children)

Let's stop working on "Lemmy app" , "mbin app", "PieFed app", "Mastodon app" and just embrace ActivityPub as the single API.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    phone apps can't use activity pub as that's a server protocol so if you want a good mobile interface you generally speaking need a rest-y api that an application can query. yes, lemmy and piefed both feature PWA frontends that can be installed to your homescreen, however on older phones this can be an extremely suboptimal experience as PWAs tend to require more RAM than native apps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    You don't need to get rid of the server. All I'm saying is that we can have a server that uses the ActivityPub API directly instead of these ad-hoc APIs for each different use case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    i don't understand how that negates the utility of a mobile app that presents this information. also i'm not saying to get rid of the server-client paradigm, not sure what you're talking about

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    I am saying is that we can have a mobile app that can do anything that Lemmy does, but without requiring a "Lemmy API" to do it.

    Any "Lemmy client" could in theory read and create posts/comments/votes/moderation reports directly by interacting with the actors outboxes. The same for any "Mastodon" client, or any "PeerTube client".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    I think that would just increase the fragmentation LOL. It's like that XKCD comic

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    It's the complete opposite of that.

    "Use ActivityPub directly for interacting with the social web graph" is the same as saying "Use HTTP and HTML directly to interact with the world wide web".

    The reason we don't see different websites using different versions of HTTP, or that someone can open a HTML document on pretty much website and read its contents is because we are building the application on top of the protocol layer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    But ActivityPud is very barebones so you will need to implement a lot of features. In doing so you are effectively creating a new Lemmy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    In doing so you are effectively creating a new Lemmy

    Indeed, I am. But to be perfectly honest, I'm doing a lot less work that I original thought in the server side, and when I get to start working on Mastodon compatibility, I will probably just change the internal implementation of mastodon's js sdk.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    There is a difference between Mastodon and Lemmy because Mastodon is user-centric and Lemmy is content-centric. I wrote about this here

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

    My point is that you can have a "content-centric" application separate from the "user-centric" application, but they are just different ways to represent and interact with the data in the social graph and as such they don't need separate APIs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 months ago (5 children)

    yeah, i think embedding Lemmy content into Mastodon is trivial, because you just show the post. But the other way around, embedding Mastodon posts into Lemmy could be a bit more tricky, because in what community do you show the post? There could be a virtual community for each Mastodon server, like when you post something on mastodon.de, then it's displayed on the lemmy community /c/all@mastodon.de

    What do you think of this?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    In ActivityPub terms, there is no such thing as a "Mastodon posts" or "Lemmy communities". You just have "authors" and "audiences". In effect, it would mean that you emulate a "post to a community" by writting a post with the community as the "audience", and anyone that follows the actor that represents the group (equivalent to the Lemmy Community) would find the posts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    so you are saying that each author should represent their own community that they populate with posts each time they post something

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I am not sure whether "represent" is the right word here. What I mean is that all posts have a "recipient" (the audience).

    For Mastodon, you have public posts where the recipient is literally a "special" audience, called https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public. If you want to see a private message to alice, you just change the "audience" to contain only the https://example.com/alice actor URI.

    To post to a community, it's the same logic: if you are posting on fediverse@lemmy.world, then the message has "https://lemmy.world/c/fediverse" as the audience. This message is then sent to lemmy.world and processed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Ok, so from a user's perspective, where would Mastodon content appear in your Lemmy feed?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    You do understand that I am describing a whole different client, right?

    There is no "Lemmy Feed", just "posts sent from individuals to a group" vs "posts sent from individuals that are broadcasting without any specific audience"

    How this presentation layer would work would be entirely up to the developer/user. I can envision people that might prefer to have a separate threaded-view for group posts like we have in most forum sites, but I can also envision people that will prefer each post appearing in a "feed", like what Facebook does for groups. I can also envison such an application providing a "image gallery" for people tthat want to see only pictures, like Vernissage does.

    My point is, it would be completely up to the user how to see the data.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent