aka freamon

Codeberg: https://codeberg.org/freamon?tab=activity

Anything from https://lemmon.website/ is me too.

  • 20 Posts
  • 608 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 27th, 2024

help-circle


  • The first link in the cross-post chain is to https://piefed.social/post/413111, which is for the channel, and shows that it was made 4 weeks ago, and includes a comment from the main LW admin.

    Your suspicions about this video seem off, but if you want to keep them, they should be directed at person who posted this old video into Lemmy, not the video’s author. As well as a PeerTube instance, Jeena has a PieFed instance, and it seems reasonable enough for him to use his own channel to discuss things that have affected him and are relevant at the time.

    What’s even weirder is that this video was already posted to !videos@lemmy.world by Jeena a month ago, and OP commented on it then. It doesn’t get picked up as a cross-post (by either Lemmy or PieFed) because PeerTube has 2 different formats for its URLs (a recent change to PieFed means they get they will do from now on, but it doesn’t apply to old posts).





  • I think they still need a separate user account. For one thing, a PeerTube channel is ‘attributedTo’ the user account, in the same way that Lemmy communities are ‘attributedTo’ the moderators. A Group belongs to at least one Person, it can’t belong to itself. Another is that it allows for creators to comment on videos, and either be recognised as the ‘OP’, or as a fellow content creator.

    In terms of rendering things like Likes and Dislikes, it has the info in the backend, so it may as well. They don’t Announce votes like Lemmy does, you have to activitely fetch them, so the channel as it exists on PeerTube provides a definitive source. Likewise, there’s all sorts of reasons why comments get out of sync, so the channel provides an authoritative place where you should be able to see them all.

    There is a friction though. I like the idea of a place that only open to people willing to create content, and isn’t interested in signups from ‘lurkers’, but providing a mobile app doesn’t seem compatible with that.


  • they seem to only give accounts to creators

    That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. I’ll get in trouble for saying it, but I think that PeerTube is for video channels what Lemmy should be for communities. It should be that if you want to start or moderate a community, then you sign up to Lemmy, but if you just want to interact with one, you use a user account provided by software that’s fully geared up around users (e.g. Mastodon).

    Ignoring for the moment that Lemmy’s federation model hasn’t been widely adopted, and that comments from Mastodon that appear in Lemmy often have annoying Hashtag / Mention spam, my fantasy version of a post in a Lemmy community would look something like https://tilvids.com/w/wjTD7fp9qy4KmTkBdSoWyc, which was created by a PeerTube user, but has been commented on and voted for by users from Mastodon, Sharkey, PieFed, other PeerTube instances, and MBIN.

    Amongst those subscribers, commenters, and voters should be Lemmy users, of course. In this thread, it feels like PeerTube is being criticised by people who want to use it in a way that it’s not designed for, because they can’t interact with it from their Lemmy account. If inter-op was better, there’d be no need to create a new account anywhere, and it would have a network effect - the channels that people are trying to discover would already have been brought in by other users, and findable through a conventional Lemmy search. Also, the votes and comments from Lemmy users that are currently going to whoever takes a PeerTube video and posts it in the likes of !videos@lemmy.world, would instead be going to original creator. This would also aid discovery (since people would be more likely to see the channel in ‘all’), and might have also some incentivising influence on the creator.

    Basically, I blame Lemmy.





  • Nothing. It wasn’t about the edit.

    I’ve said elsewhere that I thought your second follow-up question was disingenuous, so I’ll expand on that here. That’s the thing that annoyed me. Not because I think no-one should question me, or because no-one should inquire further, but because the more questions you want to ask about a particular thing, the more informed those questions need to be. Otherwise it just gets tedious, explaining why irrelevant things are irrelevant. User display names aren’t relevant to an API’s ‘/site’ response; ActivityPub isn’t relevant at all, and ‘name’ is such a generic, widely-used word, that reaching for it as evidence that I might be confused is such a stretch, I don’t know why you’d go for it. It made me question your motive, given that the likelihood of you being correct - after fishing a word out from something you don’t seem that experienced with - is so low. It stops reading as a well-intentioned question, and starts reading as scepticism for scepticism’s sake.




  • it’s silly to ask you for advice because you don’t use Lemmy

    That was never my argument. I think you know this.

    Being reluctant to answer any more questions about a topic doesn’t mean I was wrong to provide an initial answer. It just means my bandwidth has been exceeded. If Lemmy was a project I was invested in, and I didn’t think your second follow-up question was disingenuous, then it would’ve been different, but as things were, I resented being given homework about it.




  • You and db0 are doing different things - he has blog that Lemmy users can interact with as if it was another Lemmy community, whereas you have a blog that you want to use to post articles into a different Lemmy community.

    A reply is sent from Lemmy twice - once to the community to Announce out to its followers, and once to the person being replied to. A top-level reply will appear on the WordPress blog because it is a reply to the author. A reply to a reply won’t, because the blog is not following the Lemmy community (so won’t get the Announce), and the author isn’t the person being replied to.

    If you want a reply to a reply to also appear on WordPress, you need to treat it like Mastodon, and also Mention the original author. Here is an example that also appeared on the blog: https://lemmy.world/comment/14897939 (the reply from ‘freamon’)



  • I used ‘unscientific’ because it would be a pain in the arse for someone else to reproduce, it only applies to one instance, it’s a test on someone else’s in-production system that you have no control over, and the error that returns isn’t necessarily from the backend. It looks more like a Form Validation error (i.e. from the frontend). It’s perfectly possible to create a frontend that puts it’s own limits on username length, and there’s some that no doubt already exist, so a brute-force test of those limits isn’t telling you anything reliable about what Lemmy’s internal limits are.